"adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : "scott.stark(a)jboss.org" wrote : | | The missing mapping is the attachment name, and the corresponding metdata object property(s). In general a ManagedObject properties are going to map to several different metadata objects/properties. | | | | Correct, in fact I'll talk about this in a seperate thread, because this is my major stumbing block. Most of the other stuff I know how to do and it is just a case of doing it, but this requires some extra thought. | Adrian, The new thread you started: http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&t=97767 seems aimed at the more complicated use cases for this mapping. For Beta2 I would prefer us to concentrate on implementing and testing the simpler mapping cases first and then come back and revisit this in light of the more complicated ones. I think having a working implementation out there, even for just the simple case, will help us and others to think about this problem more concretely. If that means interfaces/impls need to change between Beta2 and the next release then so be it. Does the ManagedObject to metadata object/properties mapping for DataSources fall into the "trivial" category? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3995614#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...