On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Glenn Maynard <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 6:24 AM, Yonathan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Should the specification encourage onsuccess >> >> for reads and oncomplete for writes? > > > I don't think any amount of documentation is going to stop this from being > confusing. Committing transactions should really have been an explicit > request with its own result, and returning to the event loop without > committing should have rolled back the transaction. > > (What does "when a transaction can no longer become active" mean? It > doesn't seem to be defined.)
All places when transactions can become active are defined, so it be unambiguous. We also have some non-normative text which makes it easier for authors reading the spec. If you have proposals for clearer wording though I'd be all for that. / Jonas
