"tfennelly" wrote : The ContentBasedRouter and ContentBasedWiretap actions are in the jbrules service. Seems to me like these should be in the rosetta codebase if they are supposed to allow a plugable ContentBasedRouter. IIRC there should be no drools related code in these so this is another example of code being in the wrong place :) "tfennelly" wrote : The ContentBasedWiretap class uses the ContentBasedRouterFactory to create the actual ContentBasedRouter impl (defaulting to the JBossRulesRouter)... lovely. In reality, however, the ContentBasedWiretap is not at all generic, as it is littered with drools specific stuff. I'd be curious to see what would actually happen if you configured a different "cbrClass" on that action - one that doesn't use rule files etc :) littered?? Perhaps that is a slight exaggeration? I can't see anything there that forces you into drools, other than it is obviously biased that way in the comments and defaults to it. What exactly are you concerned with?? "tfennelly" wrote : Kev, what do you want to do about these issues (well... imo, they're issues if we want to use ContentBasedWiretap as a basis :) ) ? I think they can be sorted out with effecting BC, but perhaps you don't want to do that. Just let me know what you want. Not sure what you mean by 'sorted out with effecting BC' but there doesn't seem to be anything of major concern in the way it is currently written. True, it is not a 'pure' interface in that it does not correctly abstract the functionality but then the same can be said about most of our current codebase. Apart from moving the classes into rosetta what is it that you see as a concrete, necessary within that codebase? Kev View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4256363#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...