I have some troubles with deployers ordering if multiple deployers provide many inputs. So I'm trying to understand how deployers ordering works internally. I'd expect the following test to fail: --- // copy paste from DeployerFlowUnitTestCase public void testTransitionOrdering() throws Exception { DeployerClient main = createMainDeployer(); TestFlowDeployer deployer1 = new TestFlowDeployer("A"); deployer1.setInputs("3"); deployer1.setOutputs("4"); addDeployer(main, deployer1); TestFlowDeployer deployer2 = new TestFlowDeployer("B"); deployer2.setInputs("1"); deployer2.setOutputs("2"); addDeployer(main, deployer2); TestFlowDeployer deployer3 = new TestFlowDeployer("C"); deployer3.setInputs("2"); deployer3.setOutputs("3"); addDeployer(main, deployer3); Deployment deployment = createSimpleDeployment("TransitionOrdering"); main.addDeployment(deployment); main.process(); assertEquals(3, deployer1.getDeployOrder()); assertEquals(1, deployer2.getDeployOrder()); assertEquals(2, deployer3.getDeployOrder()); assertEquals(-1, deployer1.getUndeployOrder()); assertEquals(-1, deployer2.getUndeployOrder()); assertEquals(-1, deployer3.getUndeployOrder()); main.removeDeployment(deployment); main.process(); assertEquals(3, deployer1.getDeployOrder()); assertEquals(1, deployer2.getDeployOrder()); assertEquals(2, deployer3.getDeployOrder()); assertEquals(4, deployer1.getUndeployOrder()); assertEquals(6, deployer2.getUndeployOrder()); assertEquals(5, deployer3.getUndeployOrder()); main.addDeployment(deployment); main.process(); assertEquals(9, deployer1.getDeployOrder()); assertEquals(7, deployer2.getDeployOrder()); assertEquals(8, deployer3.getDeployOrder()); assertEquals(4, deployer1.getUndeployOrder()); assertEquals(6, deployer2.getUndeployOrder()); assertEquals(5, deployer3.getUndeployOrder()); } --- I'd expect this test to fail because there's no deployer with "1" output? View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4239744#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...