"adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : Why do they have to specify a default pool implementation? Most likely all they want to do is change the pool size? A much better point. "adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : We should define defaults somewhere and reference them from the three places that use. OK, but if we externalize the defaults into a "constants" class/interface, it'll have to go into ext-api for @Pool to get at it. I don't think this is too implementation-specific to be a problem, but worth noting. S, ALR View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4106430#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...