1) I'm really not sure if there is enough value of this, it just makes things more complex by providing *yet another* deployment option to support and test, and one that is much less portable than the others. Deployment is already way too complex for users, and this does not make it simpler, AFAICT. 2) Definitely won't work. The component models are totally different. 3) Again, I don't see much synergy here. * rich IoC - components.xml already has lists, maps, references, and its easier to use than MC * dependency mgmt as you are describing is not useful for us, I don't think ... for us, "dependency" is more a way to avoid ClassCastExceptions ;-) I long ago investigated basing this stuff on MC, but it turned out to not be doable. Two totally different problems, even if they look superficially similar. Same reason Seam isn't based on Spring or Pico or anything else. What we might want to do, however, is provide an MC integration layer (similar to the integration layer we are doing from Spring), where an MC component can be a Seam component at the same time. I have not thought this through, however. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4008955#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...