> From: "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit@connx.com>
> Subject: Re: 2-phase commit
> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:37:53 -0700

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

I'm not sure, what is your point here exactly?

To use OpenORB as as a transaction monitor, you'd still need XA
protocol support (which means 2-phase commit) in each of the
PostgreSQL databases being overseen by that transaction monitor, no?

Or are you saying that OpenORB includes XA support for both the master
and the slave (I am probably using the wrong terminology here), the
code be linked in or otherwise used as-is for PostgreSQL?

Either way, have you actually used OpenORB with a RDBMS, or heard
feedback from anyone else who personally has?

> 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. 

> Here is a sourceforge version of the same thing
> http://openorb.sourceforge.net/

-- 
Andrew Piskorski <atp@piskorski.com>
http://www.piskorski.com

Sat, 11 Oct 2003 11:37:14 -0400
Andrew Piskorski <atp@piskorski.com>
OpenORB  Re: 2-phase commit