There are many scenarios where this is applicable, basically it involves all blocking/synchronous request/response use cases where the calling party (the "client") is not configured to have a permanent destination for response. Using temp destinations allows an otherwise non-"connected" JMS client to receive responses only destined for itself (queries etc). I agree with sergey about temp destinations being more targeted to the actual case: a user that creates a temp destination should have full access to it, but then there is the question of that user granting further rights so someone else can actually use it (for replies etc). Regarding something more specific: the QueueRequestor/TopicRequestor classes already know which destination ("X") the client is communicating with, and creates an (for the client) unnamed ("Y") destination for replies. This use case could be much smarter and actually create a temp destination ("Y") which the client (and only the client) is allowed to read from, and the role which is allowed to read from "X" is granted the right to write to "Y"? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4055900#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...