"mark.little(a)jboss.com" wrote : Why not subtype ServiceInvoker and have a specific DLQServiceInvoker? Hmmmm... I dunno... I actually intentionally didn't do that because I'd consider that overkill. But more importantly, it would be exploding an API around ServiceInvoker, which I think is a really bad idea. We obviously shouldn't stop people extending SI, but I think we should only introduce multiple SIs into the core API as a very last resort, which this is obviously not. If there's a general consensus against having this as a static method on ServiceInvoker, then I'd vote for just getting rid of it altogether and documenting how to do it somewhere (in the SerivceInvoker Javadoc ;-) ). I def wouldn't be voting for creating separate sub classes for doing this type of thing. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4070910#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...