"bstansberry(a)jboss.com" wrote : | The JNDI binding could be done via an @JNDI annotation: | That's pretty cool. So, it looks like there are three votes in favor of removing the JNDI binding step from RemotingProxyFactory. OK. bstansberry(a)jboss.com" wrote : | If the "factory" element supported a nested "bean" element it would be a bit cleaner. | Just to be sure I understand, you're talking about a microcontainer feature, right, not something I should do with RemotingProxyFactory? I think the use of the factory element here is also pretty cool. The one thing that strikes me is that the bean with the factory element is defined with a single interface class, even though the proxy will, in fact, implement two interfaces. I certainly don't know the microcontainer internals, but superficially it seems like a bean with a factory element could live without a class attribute, since it could be derived from the factory method's return type. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4166540#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...