Bugfix: Bring back singleton option when creating a new Session Bean and interfaceless EJBs

[matthiasblaesing]

The options shown when selecting New > Session Bean are based on the capabilities of the used enterprise project.

The check missed some Jakarta EE versions and so were disabled.

Analysis done by @asbachb

Closes: #4892
Closes: #4830

[matthiasblaesing]

@asbachb I agree with your analysis in #6212, meaning, that there are version checks missing. I consider this the less invasive approach though, as it only affects only modified code sites.

To identify locations to look at I used this procedure:

• identify potentially affected modules: grep -lr "isEjb3.*Supported" * | cut -f 1 --delimiter "/" | sort -u
• open all potentially affected modules and use the "Find Usages" search on the isEjb3* methods
• review the calls

The low hanging fruits were fixed, other locations need some more changes for example to annotation scanning. These classes were marked @todo: Support JakartaEE.

[asbachb]

I'm still not convinced this is the right approach as it keeps the need to touch the code on every new EJB release.

[asbachb]

What's about 3.2 lite? From my understanding EJB lite is a subset of EJB full. So if EJB lite should support it as well.

[matthiasblaesing]

My reading of isEjb31LiteSupported is, that it is true if EJB 3.2 is supported. Assuming EJB follows the convention, that breaking changes are communicated by a change in the major number, this makes sense (repeating myself: I assume 3.2 is a superset of 3.1).
Yes if isEjb31Supported returns true, isEjb31LiteSupported will, the same is true for the other EJB capability checks.

[matthiasblaesing]

I'm still not convinced this is the right approach as it keeps the need to touch the code on every new EJB release.

Maybe. If the next EJB release is breaking (aka 5.X), then yes, but then you need to check that code anyway to see if it affected by the breakage. If it is 4.1 (a true superset), then

netbeans/enterprise/j2ee.common/src/org/netbeans/modules/j2ee/common/J2eeProjectCapabilities.java

Lines 158 to 162 in b79fd30

	public boolean isEjb40Supported() {
	J2eeModule.Type moduleType = provider.getJ2eeModule().getType();
	boolean ee9 = ejbJarProfile != null && (ejbJarProfile.equals(Profile.JAKARTA_EE_9_FULL) || ejbJarProfile.equals(Profile.JAKARTA_EE_9_1_FULL) || ejbJarProfile.equals(Profile.JAKARTA_EE_10_FULL));
	return ee9 && (J2eeModule.Type.EJB.equals(moduleType) || J2eeModule.Type.WAR.equals(moduleType));
	}

and

netbeans/enterprise/j2ee.common/src/org/netbeans/modules/j2ee/common/J2eeProjectCapabilities.java

Lines 171 to 175 in b79fd30

	public boolean isEjb40LiteSupported() {
	J2eeModule.Type moduleType = provider.getJ2eeModule().getType();
	boolean ee9Web = ejbJarProfile != null && (ejbJarProfile.equals(Profile.JAKARTA_EE_9_WEB) || ejbJarProfile.equals(Profile.JAKARTA_EE_9_1_WEB) || ejbJarProfile.equals(Profile.JAKARTA_EE_10_WEB));
	return isEjb40Supported() || (J2eeModule.Type.WAR.equals(moduleType) && ee9Web);
	}

can centrally be updated to cover the next JakartaEE version and you are done.

API breaks always mean, that you have to check code, especially if the compiler can't really help you to diagnose problems. Nothing special there. The classes I marked as @todo show IMHO that we are currently seeing only the tip of the iceberg and there is more breakage lingering.

[asbachb]

Condensed it's we surely break everything EJB related with a new version vs. we most likely won't break anything as the new ejb spec is feature par with it's predecessor.

So basically every new EJB version will for sure create bugs if not adjusted on time and if not adjusted on every if statement.

Is there any EJB release which removed/limited functionality of the prior EJB releases?

[neilcsmith-net]

I didn't merge this for 19-rc3 as it seems discussion still ongoing. Adding do-not-merge label. Please remove that label (or close the PR) depending on decision for NB19.

@asbachb please keep in mind this is for delivery into NB19. It doesn't preclude a "better" approach in a future release. Please review based on whether it addresses some immediate issues for the next release.

Thanks both!