Tim, correct me if I'm wrong.... The db persistence interface is only there so we can work out of the box. The "real" persistence that we are recommending to customers will be the file based persistence utilizing Oracle's Berkeley DB. That is going to be the persistence that we will recommend to customers, if they call and say that the db persistence runs slow. Because of licensing constraints, we can't ship Berkeley DB, so we ship with a db persister that utilizes hypersonic. Since we are shipping with a db persister, the thinking is that we should ship with something that plugs into many DBs. Since we have to work out of the box, with hypersonic, then we should just make a jdbc persister that can use all databases. So then we would have to maintain scripts, so we use an abstraction that will keep us from maintaining scripts. I agree that using hibernate, the performance may be slower. It usually is when you introduce an abstraction. But what we get for the possible performance hit is that the the messaging team doesn't have to write and maintain a script for each database. The question that I have is, since the db persistence manager is not the manager that will will eventually recommend to our customers, should we really need to worry about any other database, other than the one we ship with? Why would anyone use Oracle, or Mysql for JMS persistence, when it will be slower than the Berkeley DB file persister. I guess what I'm saying is that I think the DB persistence manager is not really that important since the recommended persistence manager will be Berkeley DB. So why are we putting work into making a cross db persistence mechanism in the first place. We could keep the current code base(with only one script) and just support the internal db that we ship with, hypersonic(yuck). The messaging team wouldn't have to do any work and one script would be easy to keep up with. When users say, Hypersonic is bad, we tell them to use Berkeley DB. It seems much simpler to have two choices and much easier to support. I'd definitely vote to throw out cross db persistence in JBM. Jay:) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4117954#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...