anonymous wrote : That's an interesting way to look at it. Do you feel you could say the same for loose-coupling, maintainability, scalability, and all of the arguments people give for layering? Perhaps it's hard for people to see that a lot of the old-school layering techniques are done for you under the covers with Seam, and feel like they're taking the "red pill" by not self-imposing their own layers. Maintainability is affected by three things: * How much code there is (less is better) * How clean and understandable the code is * How well concerns are separated If you look at a typical Seam application, I think you'll find that it wins on all three counts compared to a traditional Java EE architecture. Some people might say that our example apps show less separation of concerns between application orchestration and pure business logic, but I think this point is somewhat debatable. Anyway, if you feel this way it is very easy factor out the "pure business logic" into "pure business components". I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "loose coupling", my view is that business components in Seam applications are much, much, much more loosly coupled than in traditional architectures because they don't need to manage each others lifecycles. IMO this is one of the great strengths of our component model. Scalability is a red-herring here. The most scalable known architecture is a single physical tier with a horizontal axis of scale. Layering does not contribute to scalability. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4058900#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...