On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@...> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 6:24 AM, Yonathan <yonathan@...> 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.