First of all, I certainly wasn't suggesting that you lied to people, and I apologize if that's how it looks. I know that you take pride in your work and that's good. We all do. I only think that maybe you were a bit too enthusiastic as an evangelist for JOTM here.
The message that this article suggests and also the message that the other JOTM-related posts suggest (at least those that I've seen anyway) are all in the sense of "fully functional" etcetera.
I know that you don't mislead people or lie to them when they ask about JOTM. Neither does the JOTM team, nor any other ObjectWeb team for that matter. All those that I've met or talked to (or even occasionally worked with!) are _very_ fine people doing a good job and I will be the first to admit that.
But for novice developers/users that read a well-written article like this, it is probably impossible to distinguish between what JOTM does (and doesn't do) and what one reasonably expects a "fully functional" distributed transaction manager to do.
I do realize that there are specs on one side and the compliance issue on the other. Getting 100% compliance is something that products rarely do. No problem with that. Even better if you're trying to improve that. Like I said, a good job being done by fine people.
But still, if this article promotes a "fully functional" transaction manager and never mentions that there's no recovery then to me this is a bit like promoting a car that has no brakes. In my (admittedly personal) opinion, recovery is to a transaction manager like brakes are to a car. In that sense I think it's misleading, although certainly not intentionally.
That's all I wanted to say, nothing more.
Besides that, I think the article is very well written. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way.