Why not apply the effort to something already done and compatibly
licensed?

This:
http://dog.intalio.com/ots.html

Appears to be a Berkeley style licensed:
http://dog.intalio.com/license.html

Transaction monitor.

"Overview
The OpenORB Transaction Service is a very scalable transaction monitor
which also provides several extensions like XA management, a management
interface to control all transaction processes and a high reliable
recovery system. 

By coordinating OpenORB and OpenORB Transaction Service, you provide a
reliable and powerful foundation for building large scalable distributed
applications. 

Datasheet
The OpenORB Transaction Service is a fully compliant implementation of
the OMG Transaction Service specification. 
The OpenORB Transaction Service features are :  
  Management of distributed transactions with a two phase commit
protocol 
 Sub Transactions management ( nested transactions ) 
 Propagation of the transaction context between CORBA objects 
 Management of distributed transactions propagation through databases
with the XA protocol 
 Automatic logs to be able to make recovery in case of failures 
 Can be used as a transaction initiator or subordinate 
 High-performance, multiple thread architecture 
 Developed with POA 
 Provides a management interface to control all transactions 
 Full support of JTA 
 JDBC pooling and automatic resource enlistment 


Download
To download the OpenORB Transaction Service, do one of the following :  
  CVS : you can use CVS to grab the sources directly.  
 FTP : you get either a CVS snapshot or a prebuilt version 
To use one of these possibilities, go to the Download Services page. 

ChangeLog
August 15th 2001. Version 1.2.0.  
  Changed the transaction client side to support late binding to the
transaction monitor. 
 Bug fixed in the transactional client interceptor. This bug was due to
a change in the OpenORB behavior concerning the slot 


To get previous change log, please refer to the CHANGELOG file available
within this service distribution."

Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:37:53 -0700
"Dann Corbit" <DCorbit@connx.com>
Re: 2-phase commit
On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 09:37:53PM -0700, Dann Corbit wrote:
> Why not apply the effort to something already done and compatibly
> licensed?
> 
> This:
> http://dog.intalio.com/ots.html
> 
> Appears to be a Berkeley style licensed:
> http://dog.intalio.com/license.html
> 
> Transaction monitor.

I'd say this is complementary, not an alternative to 2PC implementation
issues.  

The transaction monitor lives on the other side of the problem.  2PC is
needed in the database _so that_ the transaction monitor can do its job.

That said, having a 3-tier model is probably a good idea if distributed
transaction management is what we want.  :-)


Jeroen


Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:36:25 +0200
"Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <jtv@xs4all.nl>
Re: 2-phase commit