"wolfc" wrote : "alessio.soldano(a)jboss.com" wrote : Do you mean that the 4.2 package (org.jboss.annotation.security.SecurityDomain) was theoretically not good too? | Yes, the package name should reflect the defining artifact or domain. Thus we can make sure there is no class name overlap. | "anil.saldhana(a)jboss.com" wrote : I did not create the annotation. I also did not refactor them or move them. I have just taken the task of cleaning up the ejb3 security integration for AS5. Given this, I feel for AS5, the annotation should be in the security spi project. | As long as this doesn't create a dependency loop that would be perfect. | OK, thanks, if/when the annotation is actually moved to the security spi project, could you please link this to a jira issue and post it here? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4138778#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...