Win a copy of TDD for a Shopping Website LiveProject this week in the Testing forum!
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other Pie Elite all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Paul Clapham
  • Ron McLeod
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Tim Cooke
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • paul wheaton
  • Henry Wong
Saloon Keepers:
  • Tim Moores
  • Tim Holloway
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Carey Brown
  • Frits Walraven
  • Piet Souris
  • Himai Minh

EJB 3.0 well received by the community?

Posts: 20
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
After digging through HF:EJB, I have become interested in the 'business' components of J2EE and would like to continue. Right now, Java is more of a hobby for me, but definitely something that is interesting. I hope to make a career change in a few years to start using it.

As such, I would like to know if I should study EJB 3.0 or just stick to 2.0/2.1. In the Head First book, they stick with the older spec and I also noticed that there is no certification exam for any of the newer specs on the site.

Has 3.0 been well accepted by developers? If so, I would expect that it will be worth studying the 3.0 spec vice the older ones. Sun's literature says it is fully compliant with 2.0/2.1 and the greatest thing on earth, but I don't like buying their hype. If 3.0 is not well received, it seems like a bit of a pain (finding help, compliant containers, good books/examples) and it might be better sticking to 2.0/2.1.
Note to self: don't get into a fist fight with a cactus. Command this tiny ad to do it:
free, earth-friendly heat - a kickstarter for putting coin in your pocket while saving the earth
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic