"adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : I'm saying that's the wrong approach. OK, thanks. I knew you'd said that, but since it was under discussion I figured if I had time I'd figured out what was meant. :-) anonymous wrote : The definition and implementation of the sub-profile is an orthogonal issue to how and when it gets activated. Yes, it's the concept of content that's available in a profile that isn't active yet that needs to be fleshed out. That's fundamentally why I want to replace the current scanning based approach; it mixes the two. There would probably need to be some API change related to this, in order to allow mgmt tools to activate/inactivate sub-profiles. If we didn't want to allow external clients to do that, it could just be done via an spi that an activation policy would use. AIUI, though, the detection of an @Singleton annotation or some other form of deployment-specific metadata is always done by a deployer; i.e. is not part of the profile service itself. (Waiting to be told I'm wrong ;) ) So you end up with a chicken and egg problem; you need to start deploying to find out a deployment is in an inactive sub-profile. That's fundamentally what drove me to the idea of using dependencies. I'd much prefer an approach where the deployers aren't even aware of content that isn't "activated". View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4155701#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...