"scott.stark(a)jboss.org" wrote : | Do we want to synch up with all the current head changes and make another javaee cts branch or do this mc/vdf/profilesevice work in a branch? | That's your call. The changes I've made shouldn't affect anything. It is intended to be 100% backwards compatible. anonymous wrote : | In terms of "Should the ServiceController create the Kernel internally | or should it be created by the ServerLoader and "injected" | in the ServiceController?", can't this only be the latter? Currently the profileserivce version of the ServerLoader/ServerImpl (which is in head but not used by default: org.jboss.system.server.profileservice.ServerImpl) creates a single kernel for the entire server. | Ok, That decides that. Just need a new constructor new ServiceController(Kernel kernel) or a setKernel() method. anonymous wrote : | Back to the discussion of allowing interaction between legacy mbeans and new kernel beans how can this be done unless they are in the same kernel? | Yes, there should be one kernel. I do plan to support heirarchical kernels in the future when I get the scoping finished, e.g. being able to deploy a DataSource at the JMS subsystem level or deploy aspects into an AOPDomain at the deployment level but even these should be off one root. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3962953#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...