"jhalliday" wrote : > It is an optional extension interface to the TransactionManager. | | In that case should it not be declared as | | public interface TransactionTimeoutConfiguration extends TransactionManager | No. Because the ConnectionManager only implements TTC not the full TM. anonymous wrote : | Right now nothing in the integration spi that forces implementations to use the the same object to provide both. Therefore making that assumption in the test is a bad thing. | If it doesn't implement the interface then don't run the test. | public void testSomething() | { | Object tm = TransactionManagerLocate.locate(); | if (tm instanceof TransactionTimeoutConfiguration) | return; // The interface is optional | } | But if you do implement the interface then it should "do what it says on the tin" ;-) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4137791#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...