I haven't thought about it in detail, but it sure sounds good. :) jboss-dev-forums-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org wrote: Was preventing people using TreeCache directly one of the original motivations for this class and the factories and such? And therefore calling various public methods that aren't part of the Cache interface? If so, I'd think the biggest danger there is old code written to use org.jboss.cache.TreeCache still working against 2.0. So perhaps we change that class' name to CacheImpl or something. That breaks any code that uses TreeCache directly, forcing use of the new API. If people then still use the class directly rather than working through the interfaces, well, that's their problem. - Brian