A company wants to implement a business rules solution for warranty claims on their widgets. The customer requires that servers should not store any information about the context of clients between…

Question

Options

• AUse a local EJB rule session.
• BImplement an MDB with JSON format.
• CUse an HTDS SOAP web service and JSON format.
• DImplement a custom SOAP web service and XML format

• A
  43% (19)
• B
  18% (8)
• C
  7% (3)
• D
  32% (14)

Explanation

A local EJB rule session is stateless by design - stateless EJBs do not retain client context between invocations, directly satisfying the first requirement. It natively supports synchronous calls and complex rule operations with strict enforcement of objects, rules, and constraints, while Java's "write once, run anywhere" model provides platform independence for integration.

Why the distractors fail:

• B (MDB + JSON): Message-Driven Beans are inherently asynchronous (they consume messages from a queue), which directly violates the synchronous call requirement.
• C (HTDS SOAP + JSON): SOAP is an XML-based protocol - pairing it with JSON is a contradictory combination. HTDS (Hosted Transparent Decision Service) uses XML, not JSON.
• D (Custom SOAP + XML): While SOAP+XML is valid and platform independent, this is a custom implementation rather than the standard rule session API, adding unnecessary complexity when a purpose-built solution exists.

Memory tip: Remember the key phrase "no state, sync, strict" - Stateless, Synchronous, and Strict enforcement all point to a local EJB rule session. When you see JSON paired with SOAP, that's a red flag (SOAP = XML), and MDB always means async - both are instant eliminations.

No community discussion yet for this question.