To be honest right now I am a bit confused on why transactions needs to be ordered, so I am going to leave the changes you made. But why do we care on transactions being ordered?
In the specs it says that Updates must have one total order:
"All update operations must eventually be applied by all replicas in the same total order"
The specifications also says that one client operations towards a replica preserve their sending order. This is maintained by the reliable FIFO communication assumption. Thus we do not need to compare Transaction to figure out which updates comes before another one.
If we find a concrete use case for comparing Transaction, then we can later discuss how to do it, we can leave it this way for now.
Originally posted by @Tech-Matt in #71 (comment)
To be honest right now I am a bit confused on why transactions needs to be ordered, so I am going to leave the changes you made. But why do we care on transactions being ordered?
In the specs it says that Updates must have one total order:
The specifications also says that one client operations towards a replica preserve their sending order. This is maintained by the reliable FIFO communication assumption. Thus we do not need to compare Transaction to figure out which updates comes before another one.
If we find a concrete use case for comparing Transaction, then we can later discuss how to do it, we can leave it this way for now.
Originally posted by @Tech-Matt in #71 (comment)