To Hans: Regarding this comment

In thisweb page author is saying:

Additionally, Andrew has recast the Tapestry vs. JSF discussion into the larger context of imposed standards versus simple, effective solutions. JSF is a big, proprietary, complex specification that arose out of private discussions by a "group of experts". As with EJBs (especially entity EJBs), the Java community is expected to accept JSF as the single, definitive approach based on an unearned level of trust. Can we wait another 3 - 5 years for Sun and the JCP to straighten out this mess? We don't know how JSF was designed, how decisions were made, what deals were cut or who the whole thing is supposed to serve. This kind of secrecy of course leads to paranoid theories ("JSF exists to support tool vendors"). Personally, I think the JCP and the JSF is Sun's best attempt to do things properly ... but I think they are quite misguided.

What is your opinion about this?

Originally posted by sunitha raghu:
In thisweb page author is saying:

What is your opinion about this?

The impression some people have about the JCP being a secret society, trying to write specifications that are only good for vendors, is very far from my experience from working as an independent contributor to four of the APIs (Servlet, JSP, JSTL and JSF). I haven't seen a single case were any "deals were cut" with any vendor. Quite the opposite. The discussions in the groups I've participated in have been very vendor-neutral, with a focus on designing solutions to real problems in the best possible way.

I agree that it would be better if the discussion happened on a public mailing list and if all reference implementations were open source, and the latest JCP makes that possible so I think we'll see more specs developed that way in the future. Hopefully that will put a stop to all the conspiracy theories around the JCP.