"tfennelly" wrote : OK... so I think we are in agreement then that EBWS in it's current form would need to change in order to provide a common basis for these http related features? I thought Kev was suggesting otherwise. It was never my intent to suggest otherwise, apologies for not being clear. "tfennelly" wrote : after that (for me) it's just about the format and I think keeping it in line with the web.xml makes sense from a user perspective (they know web.xml) and removes the need to perform a mapping (because it's already in the target format). They also know jboss-esb.xml where the rest of the config lies. "tfennelly" wrote : What we differ on perhaps is the strictness of the validation. Kev and Dave prefer the "we only allow values X, Y and Z and we block everything else" approach, where as Danny and I seem to prefer the "we don't allow A, B, or C but do allow everything else" approach (if that makes sense :) ). I think this is a fair summary, although I would add that 'allowing everything else' ties us into a particular implementation (it is now part of the public API) and also allows unforeseen side-effects to exist without constraint, especially if there is also a D which should have been explicitly excluded but wasn't. Kev View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4239361#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...