A developer needs to build an asynchronous decision service that can process extremely high transaction volume for a small input request and from an application that is not mission critical. Which…

Question

Options

• ASOAP/XML web service
• BREST/JSON web service
• CJava Message Service (JMS)
• DRemote interface of an EJB rule session

• A
  23% (7)
• B
  16% (5)
• C
  6% (2)
• D
  55% (17)

Explanation

Option D is correct because the remote interface of an EJB rule session is purpose-built for high-volume decision processing within a Java EE container - the container handles connection pooling, threading, and transaction management automatically, so the client code is minimal (just a JNDI lookup or @EJB injection). The EJB rule session avoids serialization overhead by operating closer to the runtime, giving it the highest raw throughput of the four options.

Why the distractors fail: SOAP/XML (A) introduces the most overhead - verbose XML parsing and WSDL-based client generation add latency and development effort, the opposite of what's needed. REST/JSON (B) is lighter than SOAP but still incurs HTTP round-trip and JSON marshaling costs, and it requires writing an HTTP client with error handling. JMS (C) is genuinely asynchronous and high-throughput, but it demands the most client-side scaffolding - connection factories, queue/topic configuration, message correlation for request-reply, and listener setup - making it the heaviest to develop.

Memory tip: Map the requirements to the technology - least client code + high volume + Java EE = EJB because the container does the heavy lifting. If the question had instead emphasized loose coupling or cross-platform integration, JMS or REST would move up; the phrase "least client-side development" is the signal pointing to EJB.

No community discussion yet for this question.