Find JSRs
Submit this Search

Ad Banner

JSRs: Java Specification Requests
JSR 312: JavaTM Business Integration 2.0 (JBI 2.0)

This JSR has been Withdrawn
Reason: Withdrawn at the Spec Lead's request.

Original Java Specification Request (JSR)

Identification | Request | Contributions | Additional Information

Section 1. Identification

Submitting Member: Sun Microsystems, Inc

Name of Contact Person: Peter Walker

E-Mail Address:

Telephone Number: +1 408 276 7321

Fax Number: +1 408 276 7191

Specification Lead: Peter Walker & Ron-Ten Hove

E-Mail Address: &

Telephone Number: +1 408 276 7321 & +1 978 759 0283

Fax Number: +1 408 276 7191

Initial Expert Group Membership:

Red Hat
James Strachan
EBM Websourcing
Eric Smith
Brian O'Neil

Supporting this JSR:

Red Hat
EBM Websourcing

Section 2: Request

2.1 Please describe the proposed Specification:

Java Business Integration JSR (JBI) extends Java EE and Java SE with business integration SPIs. These SPIs enable the creation of a Java business integration environment for the creation of Composite Applications involving such technologies as BPEL, Rules, XSLT and existing Java implementations to name just a few.
The purpose of the JBI 2.0 specification is to address a number of open areas in the JBI 1.0 specification and then augment it to address several new requirements of the community as described below.
Composing applications within a Service-oriented architecture (SOA) such as JBI 1.0-compliant systems presents a unique set of challenges. This becomes even more demanding when separate processes must be coordinated, across separate services. The complexity of defining and executing such applications rises even further when distributed services (including processes) are involved, such as found in an Enterprise Service Bus (ESB). The complexity rises even further with the application is distributed across different domains of control. JBI 1.0 defines a static model of services; there is no indication about sequencing, timing, or conditions to be placed on the use of services, or the interactions of two or more components acting as consumers and providers.
The areas we intend to address include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • Enhancements to facilitate the use of JBI in clustered or distributed environments, principally with respect to administration rather than the clustering/distribution mechanism itself.
  • Enhancements to clarify and enhance the use of JBI in a SOA-based approach to the creation, deployment and runtime support of Composite Applications.
  • Enhancements to support requirements stemming from WS-Policy.
  • Enhancement to support Web 2.0 technologies and usage models.
  • Introduction of a Message Exchange handler/interceptor model.
  • Enhancements to facilitate performance optimizations by component and container implementers.
  • Improved alignment with Java EE (e.g. use of transactions).
  • Recoverability of Message Exchanges.
  • Improved readability of the specification to clarify the needs of container, component and application developers.
  • Alignment with the Service Component Architecture (SCA) specifications (see with the goal of making JBI 2.0 a standard Java runtime for SCA .
  • Enhancements to support full compatibility with OSGi, without necessarily requiring OSGi.
  • Technical issues stemming from implementation experience using the JBI 1.0 specification (e.g. life-cycle of components, error handling, interop profiles, examination of the utility of WSDL definitions for non-Web Services deployed components, component attributes, threading, NIO use, classpath or endpoint activation)

In addtion, standards such as WS-CDL provide a normative vocabulary for expressing the dynamic aspects of service use and interaction that is lacking in JBI 1.0. This type of description is useful for designing (composing) applications, modifying (recomposing) them, and permitting run-time discovery and enforcement of dynamic interaction rules. The Expert Group will investigate use cases stemming from the use of other collaboration models such as this to see whether enhancements are needed.
The goal of the JBI 2.0 Expert Group will be to investigate these directions and identify and pursue others through which the JBI architecture can be kept simple but new component (bindings and services) functionality enhanced for various usage audiences. A further goal of is to deliver these new features into the JBI specification in a timely manner.

2.2 What is the target Java platform? (i.e., desktop, server, personal, embedded, card, etc.)

Java EE and Java SE

2.3 The Executive Committees would like to ensure JSR submitters think about how their proposed technology relates to all of the Java platform editions. Please provide details here for which platform editions are being targeted by this JSR, and how this JSR has considered the relationship with the other platform editions.

The JBI 1.0 specification was written with both Java SE and Java EE in mind. Some discussions in the community have suggested that JBI could form an optional or profile extension to the Java EE platform at some stage in the future.

2.4 Should this JSR be voted on by both Executive Committees?

No, only the Java SE/EE committee.

2.5 What need of the Java community will be addressed by the proposed specification?

As described above, this specification will enhance the capabilities of Java Business Integration, allowing developers to provide more sophisticated applications and achieve better integration with other Java platform technologies.

2.6 Why isn't this need met by existing specifications?

These features are specific to JBI, which does not yet provide them.

2.7 Please give a short description of the underlying technology or technologies:

See 2.1.

2.8 Is there a proposed package name for the API Specification? (i.e., javapi.something, org.something, etc.)


2.9 Does the proposed specification have any dependencies on specific operating systems, CPUs, or I/O devices that you know of?


2.10 Are there any security issues that cannot be addressed by the current security model?


2.11 Are there any internationalization or localization issues?


2.12 Are there any existing specifications that might be rendered obsolete, deprecated, or in need of revision as a result of this work?

The proposed specification will supersede the JBI 1.0 specification. The intent is that that specification will be augmented.

2.13 Please describe the anticipated schedule for the development of this specification.

Early Draft Review: early Q3/2007
Public Review Draft: Q4/2007
Final Specification: late Q2/2008

2.14 Please describe the anticipated working model for the Expert Group working on developing this specification.

The expert group will use email for most interactions, with teleconferences and face-to-face meetings scheduled as needed. We will solicit feedback from the community and leverage the open source development model.

2.15 It is important to the success of the community and each JSR that the work of the Expert Group be handled in a manner which provides the community and the public with insight into the work the Expert Group is doing, and the decisions that the Expert Group has made. The Executive Committees would like to ensure Spec Leads understand the value of this transparency and ask that each JSR have an operating plan in place for how their JSR will address the involvement of the community and the public. Please provide your plan here, and refer to the Spec Lead Guide for a more detailed description and a set of example questions you may wish to answer in your plan.

The Expert Group will publish early drafts at convenient points during the development of the specification, and solicit feedback from the community and leverage the open source development model. The forthcoming new features of the JCP website specific to JSR tracking (e.g. Message boards) will also be leveraged to the highest degree.

2.16 Please describe how the RI and TCK will de delivered, i.e. as part of a profile or platform edition, or stand-alone, or both. Include version information for the profile or platform in your answer.

To achieve the transparency, the reference implementation will be developed on a publicly viewable sourcebase, and the primary mailing list will be open to any member of the Java community. As the specification will be driven by of the reference implementation, this will have the effect of a continuously available specification draft. Weblogs, forums and articles will also be used to generate interest in the JSR.

2.17 Please state the rationale if previous versions are available stand-alone and you are now proposing in 2.13 to only deliver RI and TCK as part of a profile or platform edition (See sections 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 of the JCP 2 document).


2.18 Please provide a description of the business terms for the Specification, RI and TCK that will apply when this JSR is final.

The Reference Implementation will be made available from and/or (through the Open ESB project) at no charge without support. The reference implementation will be developed using the open source development model. Java EE licensees will receive support at no extra charge with an amendment to their active support agreement. Source code will be made available under the same terms as Project GlassFish, currently licensed under CDDL and GPLv2. The TCK license will like the one for JBI 1.0 contain no field of use restrictions.

Section 3: Contributions

3.1 Please list any existing documents, specifications, or implementations that describe the technology. Please include links to the documents if they are publicly available.

The JBI 1.0 architecture specification will be used as the basis for this work.

3.2 Explanation of how these items might be used as a starting point for the work.

The JBI 1.0 architecture specification will be used as the basis for this work.

Section 4: Additional Information (Optional)

4.1 This section contains any additional information that the submitting Member wishes to include in the JSR.