In the world of computing, technology standards bodies are the glue that keeps the user experience a relatively smooth one, writes  Karlin Lillington

When you turn on your home PC you expect your Web browser to show you what's on the internet with a minimum of fuss. If you're a large organisation running industrial-strength corporate software packages such as SAP or Oracle, you assume the parts will operate relatively seamlessly. You simply want things to work.

The fact that, for the most part, they do, is down to the work of standards bodies - the groups that decide what elements should go into particular technologies, how they should perform and what other technologies they should be able to work with.

But how certain technologies work affects the business fortunes or foibles of many companies - both those which create a technology that is proposed as a standard, and those which have gambled their software and hardware on the success of a particular standard.

Sound political? It is - especially when millions of euros worth of research and development has gone into a technology. Throw into the mix the fact that the world's biggest software company has dug in its heels in opposition to your standard and you set the stage for high drama.

That's pretty much what has happened with Java, an innovative and revolutionary software language developed several years ago by Sun Microsystems. Java allows software programs written in it to run on many different types of operating system, saving development costs for programs. In particular, it helps programs to run on the internet so that it doesn't matter what kind of operating system or computer a user has.

Cue disagreements with Microsoft, then.

The company has refused to add Sun's Java "engine" - the little program that creates a tiny virtual operating system on your desktop to run programs based on Java - to its market-dominant internet browser, Explorer. This has led to lawsuits, injunctions and a prickly attitude towards the company among the Java standards body, known as the Java Community Process (JCP).

Microsoft, perhaps alone among the major technology companies, has no representation on the body.

"They're welcome at this table too but they've chosen not to be here," says Dr Donald Deutsch, vice-president of standards strategy and architecture, and JCP representative for Oracle.

He is sitting around a large table at Iona headquarters in Ballsbridge with half a dozen JCP executive committee members. The 660-member JCP has regular meetings around the globe and, last week, they gathered in Dublin to thrash out differences and decide Java's future.

Microsoft clearly rankles - the company's commitment to Java is "lower than nothing", says Mr Onno Kluyt, director of the JCP program office.

The company takes part in other standards bodies "where they don't dominate the market", quips Dr Deutsch.

Not that the committee is necessarily full of love and compassion towards each other, either. Some companies, such as IBM, have taken a strong stance on moving Java in directions they prefer. Its development choices create software that runs on its version of Java and locks out other companies - a major bone of contention at meetings.

Although IBM isn't represented at the table, the company was at the JCP gathering and even members from rival companies such as Oracle and SAP are quick to emphasise IBM's commitment to the community process represented by JCP.

Mr Michael Bechauf, vice-president of Java architecture and standards for SAP, says SAP has chosen to use the IBM version of Java, called Eclipse, but emphasises that he sees the different versions as "complementary".

Oracle's Dr Deutsch adds: "IBM leads more of the [technology working groups within JCP\] than anyone in the community. They are very committed."

They'll admit to serious battles that can last over a succession of meetings and create sour feelings.

Dr Deutsch says his gripe was that, when Sun first opened the Java standards process up to JCP, "it hadn't gone far enough". The company wanted to retain more control of the process than many members felt was either productive or healthy, and a mammoth wrestling match commenced.

"It was a very painful process, over 22 months, to come to a point of mutual dissatisfaction," Dr Deutsch says.

Everybody laughs. "The most difficult issue though was not the technical issues - it was the legal, and the administrative rules of engagement issues," he adds.

This point brings general consensus from committee members and also illustrates how the process ultimately works.

"That \ led to a totally new licensing agreement between Sun and Java users," notes Mr Mike DeNicola, director of industry relations for Fujitsu.

According to Mr Kluyt, "one of the things that has created tension is that Java and JCP didn't start at the same time. JCP was superimposed on that [development process\]."

The feeling among the group is that, difficult as it is to agree standards, the end result will be a larger market for Java products that benefits everybody, even though they may compete vigorously against each other.

"We make the overall pie bigger so that we can compete on other things," says Mr Edward Cobb, vice-president of architecture and standards for BEA Systems.

But the big battle remains - not the market that Java vendors can portion out among themselves, but whether Java can hold ground against Microsoftian alternatives.

"We're ultimately working towards open standards. That's what the customer is demanding. They don't want technology that comes from one vendor and is subservient to one vendor," argues Mr Simon Pepper, director of product marketing at Iona.

"The challenge to JCP is to make sure that Java isn't just in maintenance mode," says Mr DeNicola. "To make sure that wherever computing is going, Java is a part of that."