Ok. Let's consider the order example again. Order processing in my system may take several days or even weeks. During that process order is handled by 5 different executives and passes through 7 statuses. From business point of view, it is single long running business-process. If I understand correctly, I can associate "order" component with @Scope(PROCESS) so that Seam takes care of it's persistence across sessions and users. Order can be tied to jBPM task, and task is always assigned to some person (actor). Under such approach, Order may even not be entity bean. Stateful session bean with scope=process will be persisted too, right ? On the other hand, if I make Order entity bean, I can explicitly save it's state and assignments in key points. In such case, I don't understand benefits of jBPM usage, except of better visualization as Pete says. Using both approaches together seems some kind of persistence duplication to me : Order will be (1) persisted as entity bean , and (2) persisted as scope=process Seam component. Or does Seam "know" that it is already an entity bean that needs no additional state management efforts ? Is it a good practice to rely on Scope=process context for stateful session beans , without EJB persistence ? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4058553#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...