One more argument in favor of version-named jars: We often find ourselves for a period of time with more than one version of a library so that our team can test the upgrade in phases. Even more helpful, it lets various users chime in before we make the change permanent in the .classpath and build.xmls. For instance, the recent Richfaces release had problems with Seam, so the fact that we had multiple releases in the repository saved our butts without having to drag all the repository users through the muck because we hadn't made the change global for everyone in the .classpath and build.xml. I realize we can do this without version-numbered jars, but this makes it a lot easier. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4092668#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...