No inconsistency. They're best effort.
Tom Jenkinson wrote:
As we are somewhat free to implement this behavior free of spec constraints (as it isn't in a spec) we are free to make these kind of descisions. I worry though that by not attempting to perform afterCompletion after the transaction has been commit/rollback we are introducing an inconsistency with JTS that will be confusing to a user who is familiar with JTS?
For now I will proceed down the line of calling aftercompletion as part of commit/rollback as you requested, if we decide that this needs its own phase after further consultation with the community (Jonathan/Mark?) we can factor it into a separate cycle.