"jaikiran" wrote : | Yep, it will be backward compatible and will have tests :) . This needs to be changed / fixed / in the worst case reverted. (1) The names are bad * RealDeployerWithInput - how should I know which one to take; vs. AbstractRealDeployerWithInput * ExtendedDeploymentVisitor - extended? .. what does it extend ... Nameable perhaps? (2) Looking at the impl, it's actually usesless to have this ExtendedDeploymentVisitor. This could easily be a contract of the deployer, to have an attachment name + old DeploymentVisitor. As all you do is lookup certain attachment and pass it to visitor. Dunno why this should be part of the visitor, or why new interface is required. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4238264#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...