&quot;adrian(a)jboss.org&quot; wrote : | The policy xml should be unmarshalled to an object that implements | BeanMetaDataFactory. When the deployment invokes getBeans() | that object will create some BeanMetaData for a POJO | that knows how to install/uninstall data into the MetaData repository. | Ok, this answers my question. :-) I've already written initial policy + XB code - it's in the trunk; along with tests, xsd, common-core and xb update. &quot;adrian(a)jboss.org&quot; wrote : | | | public class Policy implements BeanMetaDataFactory | | { | | public void setScope(ScopeMetaData); | | | | public void setMappings(Map<String, ValueMetaData>) | | | | public List<BeanMetaData> getBeanMetaData() | | { | | // IMPORTANT the Mappings needs to be converted to a MapMetaData | | // such that the injections in ValueMetaData work correctly, i.e. dependencies | | return buildMetaDataRepositoryInstallerBeanMetaData(); | | } | | } | | | Currently I have a separate binding element, which takes any MC value. This should do it for the injection / dependency, right? &quot;adrian(a)jboss.org&quot; wrote : | NOTE: I'm not overly impressed by the name "Policy" | perhaps <metadata> would be a better name? Uf, 'metadata'. We have 'metadata' everywhere - xb, administration, repo, ... I still like 'policy' better (and the fact that the initial code is already written). But I'm open for suggestions, refactoring makes wonders these days ;-). View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4012997#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...