OK... so I think we are in agreement then that EBWS in it's current form would need to change in order to provide a common basis for these http related features? I thought Kev was suggesting otherwise. Re using mapped Vs filtered "suplemental" web.xml data (for want of a better term), how about we identify: 1. What we think would need to be validated? 2. Where the possible sources of conflict would be if we didn't validate (which nobody is proposing)? Obviously they both go hand in hand :) I think the same level of validation can be achieved with either approach. With either approach you can restrict the user defined config to containing specific values, after that (for me) it's just about the format and I think keeping it in line with the web.xml makes sense from a user perspective (they know web.xml) and removes the need to perform a mapping (because it's already in the target format). What we differ on perhaps is the strictness of the validation. Kev and Dave prefer the "we only allow values X, Y and Z and we block everything else" approach, where as Danny and I seem to prefer the "we don't allow A, B, or C but do allow everything else" approach (if that makes sense :) ). View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4238298#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...