"alesj" wrote : &quot;david.lloyd(a)jboss.com&quot; wrote : | | If not, isn't this a step that would have to be duplicated for every project that has a customized XML deployment format? | | | | Or, are you suggesting that I should use the MC's root deployment element instead? | Yes, then you don't need that extra deployer. | But if you still want to have your custom xml with your custom root, then there is no other way - at least not out-of-the-box. OK, well I thought about this some more, and I still don't like this option because the integration with the MC descriptor doesn't work the way that I think would make sense. To illustrate what I mean, say the user wants to define a TCP server. The XML snippet would look like this: | ... | <io:tcp-server name="MyServer" handler-factory-bean="MyHandlerFactory"> | <io:bind-address port="12345"/> | </io:tcp-server> | ... | This basically expands to a BeanMetaData that describes a bean named "MyServer". So a "tcp-server" is basically just a way to define a specific kind of bean - so from the user's perspective, they might expect that a "tcp-server" could be used anywhere a "bean" might be used, since "tcp-server" just describes a bean. If I use the BeanMetaDataFactory method though, it's not a 1:1 mapping like that. Make any sense? I mean I guess it might be handy to be able to have the bean deployments and I/O deployments in one file, so you can define your handler beans and then in the same file deploy the servers that use it. On the other hand, I don't want to force the users to do that. The problem I continue to have is that those of us trying to make deployers using the new stuff are basically pioneering new territory, and since there are no established idioms we're really just making it up as we go. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4152519#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...