you can also see the 0-day vulnerability as another step requiring
configuration with RMI and not with JAX-RS/JSON default usage. Also another
thing to justify if you get an audit ;)


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber
<http://www.tomitribe.com> | JavaEE Factory
<https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com>

2016-05-30 10:14 GMT+02:00 Trenton D. Adams <[email protected]>:

> Also, another aspect to all of this, is that we have a moderately sized
> application, which uses RMI for the business logic.  Converting that to
> @Stateful EJB, would be a breeze, and we could really be confident it would
> continue working once we've gone through our testing cycle.  I'm guessing
> that converting it to JAX-RS, could be very painful, error prone, and
> consume a lot of develop, test, fix, test, fix, test, fix, before we could
> even go live.  Essentially, @Stateful EJB can literally have no code
> changes to the RMI code, except annotations, and it would work almost
> identically, except the authentication part of it.
>
> Also, OpenEJB certainly adds some nice multicast distributed server
> capabilities.
>
> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Trenton D. Adams <
> [email protected]
> > wrote:
>
> > That is very interesting.  Apparently Jersey has a proxy client API as
> > well.
> >
> > There has to be some sort of state, even if it's as simple as maintaining
> > that your user is authenticated.  With this proxy client api, is it
> > possible to have cookies automatically kept, and sent during each
> request?
> >
> > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 12:23 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> 2016-05-30 7:52 GMT+02:00 Trenton D. Adams <[email protected]>:
> >>
> >> > On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >> [email protected]
> >> > >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hello
> >> > >
> >> > > 2016-05-29 20:57 GMT+02:00 Trenton D. Adams <
> >> [email protected]>:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Good day,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I've had discussions with people that think JAX-RS should be used
> >> as a
> >> > > > replacement for technologies like EJB, for making n-tier
> solutions.
> >> > Some
> >> > > > of my main concerns about that would be...
> >> > > >
> >> > > > - JAX-RS is mainly a structured approach to solving the problem,
> and
> >> > does
> >> > > > not use OOD very well.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Assuming you don't mix local EJB and JAX-RS which are very different
> >> and
> >> > > that EJB means there remote EJB.
> >> > >
> >> > > Since it does serialize the payload it is 1-1 with EJB(d), you have
> >> more
> >> > or
> >> > > less the exact same constraints there. Then you can use different
> >> format
> >> > > over JAX-RS (JSON/XML obviously, but java serialization like EJBd
> too,
> >> > and
> >> > > more advanced formats too)
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > ​Yeah, I'm referring to remotable EJBs.​
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > > - Having stateless remote calls is fine for certain types of data,
> >> but
> >> > > I've
> >> > > > found stateful technologies remove a lot of boilerplate stuff.
> >> > Combined
> >> > > > with good OOD, the savings are even better.  JAX-RS is intended to
> >> be
> >> > > > stateless, so you'd be required to pass all of the state
> >> information on
> >> > > > each call.  That requires a lot more thought, planning, and I
> think
> >> > it's
> >> > > > more prone to development errors, etc.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Nothing prevents you to have a stateful JAX-RS endpoint, you just
> >> need to
> >> > > ensure your client maintains the session properly.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > ​Yes, I know nothing prevents you, but the whole point of REST, is to
> be
> >> > stateless, is it not?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Well actually no. JAX-RS is just a nice API on top of HTTP/Servlet
> layer.
> >> Then you do what you want. Stateless architectures are super nice for a
> >> lot
> >> of reasons
> >> but it is not bound to JAX-RS or EJB where the recommanded practise can
> be
> >> to be stateless as well.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I know TomEE supports JAX-RS as well as EJB, JAX-WS, etc.  But, if
> >> EJB
> >> > is
> >> > > > better for enterprise software, I'd like to be able to articulate
> >> it.
> >> > > Or,
> >> > > > perhaps JAX-RS is best, and I'd like to be able to articulate
> that.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > Technically both (remote EJB and JAX-RS) are globally the same in
> >> term of
> >> > > architecture. In term of ecosystem JAX-RS+JSON/XML is really bigger
> >> and
> >> > > more standard (you will find clients for all languages in 5mn, not
> for
> >> > > EJBd).
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > I'm curious, how do you see EJB and JAX-RS as being the same
> >> architecture?
> >> > EJB has the capability of maintaining state, and obfuscates the remote
> >> call
> >> > entirely, while JAX-RS does not.  As far as I've ever seen, it's up to
> >> you
> >> > to develop the boilerplate code to make the call, even when you're
> using
> >> > JAX-RS 2 with the client api.  I mean you could use something like
> >> retrofit
> >> > to make it sort of like EJB.
> >> > ​
> >> >
> >>
> >> Use CXF client factory then you will create a proxy from your JAX-RS
> >> contract => you hide the JAX-RS calls behind an interface. It makes it
> >> more
> >> or less the same as EJB excepted you replaced EJBException by
> >> WebApplicationException:
> >>
> >>
> http://cxf.apache.org/docs/jax-rs-client-api.html#JAX-RSClientAPI-Proxy-basedAPI
> >>
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to