@Alex: Thanks for the tip - I just had a look at it. It seems quite interesting solution. Two issue are comming to my mind, when I look at the code: If you have multiple excluive jobs which should be executed concurrently I think you will 1) get stale object exception in the ExecuteJobCommand because the will overwrite the lockowner each other and 2) change the transaction behaviour because you execute multiple jobs with the ExecuteJobsCommand in one transaction. This might have unwanted side effects. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4208740#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...