Though Ted misunderstands the JCP process a little. The JCP process is just that, a process. It can define an API that can be used on any JDK version it wishes. A JSR does not have to tie itself or integrate itself into any of the big API bundles (JDK or J2EE). Also there is no fixed time schedule, so there's no need to rush things to force a standard.

Actually I do understand the JCP process. More than I want to. I've been directly involved in discussions with Sun regarding the ASF and issues that have come up in the JCP. I have lived through multiple versions of the JCP as an IBM employee, as a member of the ASF, and as an individual. In theory, what you say about the JCP is true. In practice, most JSR's end up being bundled into J2{M,S,E}E. Once that happens it makes things much harder to change.

I'm glad to hear that the StAX JSR is making great progress. I'd feel better about the progress if I could see the discussions going on and participate. But I can't. I'd be very disappointed if Rickard, Cedric, Jon, Gregor, and all the othe r AOP folks had to do their work in secret under the JCP or W3C style processes.

Perhaps you're right that standardizing something around interceptors makes sense. I feel that there is a tendency to run to the JCP to get things blessed when it is unnecessary to do so. I don't necesarily believe that things need to be standardized. I do believe that they need to be developed in an open and collaborative process. I think that is what is happening with AOP right now. I'd rather not have it all sucked under the JCP secrecy veil.