In case my expansions below dont make it clear enough, I also think option 3 is the way to go. I was thinking of you with that comment :) Yes, certain prefixes, some of which may already be in use as they do form 'valid' addresses, might not play well in a future global addressing context, certainly something to consider. Any more concrete thoughts/examples on a regex 'mangling' mechanism? In terms of Destination equivalence, if the name mangling is conducted on the way out of the client to form an AMQP address from the initial 'JMS name', and reversed on the way in to the client to give the 'JMS name' used for getJMSDestination/getJMSReplyTo, then I guess two Destination objects would be considered equal if they had the same type and same 'JMS Name'. Robbie
