Sure, I think that would be useful on a number of levels: 1. From a users perspective, it'd be easier to add new transports. 2. From a project perspective, it'd easier to maintain the related code in this area. I looked at this a while ago, playing around with annotations on the EPR classes for defining the protocols supported by that EPR, plus an "ArtifactFactory" for creating Courier and EPR instances associated with these transports. More however would be needed in the area of the listener configs i.e. supporting the config mappings in an extensible way, or eliminating the need to do mappings all together (the ultimate goal!!). View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4118990#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...