anonymous wrote : What is the reason for inheriting from a base class? Would it not be easier if these were POJOs? The mainly intention for it is we can make the Request/Response class as a subclass of esb Message. If we create the Request object , we can directly use this object to invoke ESB message. After we exposed esb service as a web service , we can create this request object and use this class to marshal soap message like the jaxws client does. anonymous wrote : think it would be better to use a named location within the message body for both parts and allow the names to be configurable. This would then be consistent with the way we are handling similar tasks within the current codebase, for example the integration with jBPM/drools maps these named locations into/out of their variable scopes. That's I need to consider . I do not know if it can do this if we map the request object filed name to name location and the filed value to ESB part value. For example : org.jboss.esb.Request extends XMLMessageBase { public String foo; public byte[] bar; } In XMLMessageBase class , we can ship the foo value and bar value into message body : getBody().add(field.getName(), filedValue); View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4146759#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...