spmallette commented on code in PR #3423: URL: https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/3423#discussion_r3248720573
########## docs/src/reference/gremlin-applications.asciidoc: ########## @@ -2242,10 +2242,14 @@ above with the use of the `maximumSize`. [[considering-transactions]] ==== Considering Transactions -Non-transactional requests (those without a `transactionId`) behave as self-contained units of work where the graph's -own transaction semantics apply. Each traversal executes within its own transaction as managed by the graph -implementation itself. Transactional requests participate in a transaction opened via `g.tx().begin()`, where the -client explicitly controls the lifecycle through `g.tx().commit()` and `g.tx().rollback()`. +Non-transactional requests (those without a `transactionId`) behave as self-contained units of work. If the underlying Review Comment: In the provider docs we wrote about "graphs that don't support transactions" and here we talk about "non-transactional". I wonder if we should avoid that language and just better introduce the notion of implicit and explicit transactions and talk only in those terms. In this way, all graphs have a transaction and they all support implicit (i.e. auto-commit, sessionless, non-transactional, etc. in the old parlance) and may support explicit (i.e. manual commit, session, transactional, etc. in the old parlance). In this way we don't drag back any of the older terminology. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
