IMO, we need a limited grammar to express the configuration options for a node. That would help to provide better support for this pluggability in the designer. I think we should be thinking in the following direction: 1) limit the grammar to configure node-action properties to strings, numbers, lists and maps 2) helper classes to make it easy to build a form. the node grammar could be input. maybe even a simple special xml language for forms a la XForms could be made to create the eclipse node-action configuration forms. 3) a default way on how a grammar is translated to xml in the process definition. That way, the only input that the designer would need to plug a new node type are: * icon * grammar * form (either a class or an xml document) If default grammer-to-xml is used, then the grammar would be sufficient input for the parsing of the process during deployment in the runtime engine. So the important point IMO is that we need to think about a simple grammar to express node configuration options. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4096983#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...