"adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : | I'll do them as elements so you can properly customize it. | With xml wildcards, etc. to define your own. | Ok, but then if the attribute form still exists, won't it just be an alias for the most common element construct? To get back to the original question, it seems both included/excluded attributes and include/capability elements make sense. The attributes being shorthand for common element forms. In the case where attributes/elements overlap, we have to consider understanding the filter type, even if only in the management interface to help diagnose conflicts like declaring a p1 capability when p1 was not made visible to the class loader itself. For that we would need access to the raw packages, local packages, and exported packages. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4131450#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...