EJB 3.1 @LocalBean vs no annotation

The rules are (from memory):

1. Bean has a @LocalBean annotation -> bean has a no-interface view
2. Bean has a @Local annotation -> bean has a local view
3. Bean has a @Remote annotation -> bean has a remote view
4. Bean has no view annotations, but directly implements an interface which has a @Local annotation -> bean has a local view
5. Bean has no view annotations, but directly implements an interface which has a @Remote annotation -> bean has a remote view
6. Bean has no view annotations, but directly implements an interface which has no view annotations -> bean has a local view
7. Bean has no view annotations, and implements no interfaces -> bean has a no-interface view

So, using @LocalBean and using no annotation at all are both ways of getting a no-interface view. If you just want a no-interface view, then the simplest thing is not to annotate. Provided you’re not also implementing any interfaces.

Part of the reason @LocalBean exists to add a no-interface view to a bean which also has an interface view. I imagine the scenario uppermost in the spec authors’ minds was one where you have a bean like:

@Stateless
public class UserPreferences {
    public String getPreference(String preferenceName);
    public Map<String, String> getPreferences();
}

Where you would want to expose both methods locally, but only the coarser-grained getPreferences() remotely. You can do that by declaring a remote interface with just that method, then just slapping @LocalBean on the bean class. Without it, you’d have to write a pointless local interface just to expose both methods locally.

Or, to look at it another way, the @LocalBean exists because there is such a thing as a no-interface view, and the no-annotation option exists as a handy shortcut.