review the API's
diff --git a/plugins/org.eclipse.wst.internet.monitor.core/monitorcore/org/eclipse/wst/internet/monitor/core/ContentFilterDelegate.java b/plugins/org.eclipse.wst.internet.monitor.core/monitorcore/org/eclipse/wst/internet/monitor/core/ContentFilterDelegate.java
index cf7128e..4fa45ad 100644
--- a/plugins/org.eclipse.wst.internet.monitor.core/monitorcore/org/eclipse/wst/internet/monitor/core/ContentFilterDelegate.java
+++ b/plugins/org.eclipse.wst.internet.monitor.core/monitorcore/org/eclipse/wst/internet/monitor/core/ContentFilterDelegate.java
@@ -25,6 +25,10 @@
  * functionality. The contentFilters extension point, IContentFilter,
  * and ContentFilterDelegate should all move to the o.e.wst.internet.monitor.ui
  * plug-in.]
+ * [issue: CS - I'd echo the comment above that this seems like a UI concern.  
+ * I noticed there's also a viewer on the UI side, so i'm not sure how these would interact. 
+ * I assume that filters operate on the byte stream and aren't concerned with UI presentation...
+ * but usually UI's and filters are tightly coupled.
  * </p>
  * 
  * @since 1.0
diff --git a/plugins/org.eclipse.wst.internet.monitor.core/monitorcore/org/eclipse/wst/internet/monitor/core/IContentFilter.java b/plugins/org.eclipse.wst.internet.monitor.core/monitorcore/org/eclipse/wst/internet/monitor/core/IContentFilter.java
index 21524a1..3a0ea2b 100644
--- a/plugins/org.eclipse.wst.internet.monitor.core/monitorcore/org/eclipse/wst/internet/monitor/core/IContentFilter.java
+++ b/plugins/org.eclipse.wst.internet.monitor.core/monitorcore/org/eclipse/wst/internet/monitor/core/IContentFilter.java
@@ -44,6 +44,13 @@
 	 * order relative to each other. Lower orders are processed first.
 	 *
 	 * @return the relative order
+	 * 
+	 * [issue: CS - The schema (contentFilterns.exsd) defines an 'order' attribute.  
+	 * The comments above suggest that filters should be designed to be composable.  Is this correct?  
+	 * It would be good to make this optional if the user had no idea how his filter should be ordered.
+	 * I've found that sometimes 'low', 'medium', 'high' are adequate to handle ordering issues and are 
+	 * easier for the extension writer deal with and get a sense of the proper value to assign. ]
+	 * [issue: CS - A minor point ... in contentFilterns.exsd the 'order' attribute should have type='int' not type='string']
 	 */
 	//public int getOrder();
 
diff --git a/plugins/org.eclipse.wst.internet.monitor.core/monitorcore/org/eclipse/wst/internet/monitor/core/IMonitorWorkingCopy.java b/plugins/org.eclipse.wst.internet.monitor.core/monitorcore/org/eclipse/wst/internet/monitor/core/IMonitorWorkingCopy.java
index f35c419..c556094 100644
--- a/plugins/org.eclipse.wst.internet.monitor.core/monitorcore/org/eclipse/wst/internet/monitor/core/IMonitorWorkingCopy.java
+++ b/plugins/org.eclipse.wst.internet.monitor.core/monitorcore/org/eclipse/wst/internet/monitor/core/IMonitorWorkingCopy.java
@@ -23,6 +23,11 @@
  * </p>
  * @see IMonitor
  * @since 1.0
+ * 
+ * [issue : CS - it sounds like this is something useful for creating monitors. 
+ * Shouldn't this be called a IMonitorConfiguration?  Is there an advantage to making
+ * this actually seem to be a IMonitor?  Perhaps some UI convenience?  
+ * Is a IMonitorWorkingCopy actually 'useable' for monitoring .. or is it really just a configuration? ]
  */
 public interface IMonitorWorkingCopy extends IMonitor {
 	/**
diff --git a/plugins/org.eclipse.wst.internet.monitor.core/monitorcore/org/eclipse/wst/internet/monitor/core/IRequestListener.java b/plugins/org.eclipse.wst.internet.monitor.core/monitorcore/org/eclipse/wst/internet/monitor/core/IRequestListener.java
index 88dd800..f5e8ca3 100644
--- a/plugins/org.eclipse.wst.internet.monitor.core/monitorcore/org/eclipse/wst/internet/monitor/core/IRequestListener.java
+++ b/plugins/org.eclipse.wst.internet.monitor.core/monitorcore/org/eclipse/wst/internet/monitor/core/IRequestListener.java
@@ -16,6 +16,8 @@
  * 
  * @see IMonitor#addRequestListener(IRequestListener)
  * @since 1.0
+ * 
+ * [issue : CS - how come there's no requestRemoved() or requestComplete()?  Perhaps this just doesn't make sense in this context? ]
  */
 public interface IRequestListener {
 	/**
diff --git a/plugins/org.eclipse.wst.internet.monitor.core/monitorcore/org/eclipse/wst/internet/monitor/core/IStartup.java b/plugins/org.eclipse.wst.internet.monitor.core/monitorcore/org/eclipse/wst/internet/monitor/core/IStartup.java
index 6059489..0c01f71 100644
--- a/plugins/org.eclipse.wst.internet.monitor.core/monitorcore/org/eclipse/wst/internet/monitor/core/IStartup.java
+++ b/plugins/org.eclipse.wst.internet.monitor.core/monitorcore/org/eclipse/wst/internet/monitor/core/IStartup.java
@@ -16,6 +16,8 @@
  * implemented using the normal contribution mechanisms.
  * 
  * @since 1.0
+ * 
+ * [issue : CS -  Why do we need to load other plugins from this plugin's startup method?  Isn't this bad practise?]  
  */
 public interface IStartup {
 	/**
diff --git a/plugins/org.eclipse.wst.internet.monitor.ui/monitorui/org/eclipse/wst/internet/monitor/ui/ContentViewer.java b/plugins/org.eclipse.wst.internet.monitor.ui/monitorui/org/eclipse/wst/internet/monitor/ui/ContentViewer.java
index 943f6b4..26fa998 100644
--- a/plugins/org.eclipse.wst.internet.monitor.ui/monitorui/org/eclipse/wst/internet/monitor/ui/ContentViewer.java
+++ b/plugins/org.eclipse.wst.internet.monitor.ui/monitorui/org/eclipse/wst/internet/monitor/ui/ContentViewer.java
@@ -30,7 +30,9 @@
  * views for the user to make a manual selection from, regardless
  * of the actual content of the message traffic?]
  * </p>
- * 
+ *  [issue: CS - If a ContentViewer is editable, does that mean we can edit the 
+ *  bytes of the message and resend it across the wire?  How is an editable ContentViewer
+ *  handled differently by the framework? Perhaps an example of what an editeable viewer would do. ]
  * @since 1.0
  */
 public abstract class ContentViewer {