"david.lloyd(a)jboss.com" wrote : I see, so you're saying that it would be a generalized tunnel for any socket protocol? That could be useful for Remoting and for other things as well. Exactly. :-) "david.lloyd(a)jboss.com" wrote : This does imply that we (again) need to discuss the direction to go with HTTP as a Remoting transport - should it be a separate mapping, or just be a tunnelling platform for socket-based protocols, or both, and why? That's a good question I missed out. I think it depends on whether we need to interoperate with other HTTP client module. If we don't, tunnelling is the easiest way to get HTTP support for Remoting IMHO. If we want to allow others write an HTTP-based client implementation, then we do need a well defined separate mapping. My opinion is that users will not bother with writing an HTTP client by themselves. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4202008#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...