anonymous wrote : In general nothing should depend on the form of the object name. Agreed. There's a unit test that builds up an object name, meant to do the same as what the Ejb3Container does. It failed due to the addition of the ear attribute. That's no big deal; test should be better. I was more concerned about the general issue; the object name thing is just what got me looking into it. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4150508#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...