genman wrote : | "2. Synchronous raw send" - In general, I find APIs that use byte[] sort of cumbersome. Its brother "send(byte [], int off, int len)" is better, but still ugly. I would avoid that sort of thing. Using actual objects is better. I mean, if you really want to optimize things, have your objects implement Externalizable. I don't see how "instanceof" and a cast would be slow. We most likely won't have any send(byte[]), but an sent(ByteBuffer) or equivalent instead. There's a vigorous discussion on this subject going on here: http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&t=92869 The point in contention is whether to offer this as a top level API call, or make it accessible via a "chained marshaller" mechanism Tom Elrod is experimenting with as we speak. We're supposed to have a conference to discuss this, some time mid week. If interested, I can send you the call info. genman wrote : | "4. asynchSend" - I can't see how this is different than "invokeOneWay" I guess you say that, but still suggest adding it? I like symmetry. However, adding a new method name doesn't make too much sense if the current one provides the behavior we need, so I guess I won't make too much noise over that. The document is just a proposal, it's not etched in stone :). View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3980253#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...