Sean McGrath on transactions: A big +1 from me.
I have been involved in quite a few projects where some technology or other was being evaluated, and distributed transactions (2PC style) always were deemed to be a critical component.
Not one of these projects ended up actually using them.
Although distributed transactions are deemed the holy grail of enterprise computing by some, I think they are used rarely, and if they are used, it’s absolutely never in a scenario where the resource managers being coordinated are not very tightly related.
Some time ago, I talked to somebody who was involved in a project where 2PC semantics were (successfully!) implemented to sync transactions between an RDBMS running on Unix and an IMS running on OS/390, with a BEA Weblogic Enterprise server acting as the coordinator. When it was run for the first time, and the OS/390 operators actually noticed what all those geeks had been up to, and that they dared to lock a whole IMS segment for the duration of one of their crappy transactions, they were only barely able to avoid a collective heart attack. Needless to say, the whole idea was dropped immediately.
Distributed 2PC transactions and the idea of loosely-coupled systems simply don’t match. In fact, I believe that in any loosely-coupled system, transactions can’t be pushed into the supporting framework or infrastructure at all — you need to implement the logic for handling failed commits with at least the same effort as your success cases.