I really see this as a module. It's no different than our current spring (and now guice) integration in that sense. We could have an "ioc" common module and then have modules that build on that. But in general it is IoC (or really DI) related.

IOC was a bad name for that module originally, lets not repeat that mistake.

What about DI, or is that too general? I guess the first question to answer is what is the nature of these integrations. The JBoss AS team has probably thought about this terminology so we should see what they have to say about the name. Obviously, each integration would be named after the framework, but if there were shared code what would it be called? Not a question we have to answer right away.

-Dan

--
Dan Allen
Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action

http://mojavelinux.com
http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Dan

NOTE: While I make a strong effort to keep up with my email on a daily
basis, personal or other work matters can sometimes keep me away
from my email. If you contact me, but don't hear back for more than a week,
it is very likely that I am excessively backlogged or the message was
caught in the spam filters.  Please don't hesitate to resend a message if
you feel that it did not reach my attention.