"Kevin.Conner(a)jboss.com" wrote : "tfennelly" wrote : I don't think anyone was suggesting doing a C&P job. | I'm certain you would not do that, rather you would abstract it out into another class and base it off of that. | | "tfennelly" wrote : So you want an attribute containing an alias of some sort on it Vs specifying the actual class? | There is already an extension mechanism in that class and, although it may not be how you nor I would choose to do it if starting from scratch, there is no *technical* reason for changing it. It may not be the cleanest interface but it does the job. | | There are pros and cons to both approach and I'm sure there will be advocates for each. Lets stick with the 'status quo' though. | | Assuming there is no technical reason for moving away from the current mechanism then an attribute would appear to be the simplest way of specifying the types. It is certainly better than specifying the full class name as an override. Are there any alternatives to this? | | Kev OK... thanks. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4256436#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...