Snaposhot of Object (and may be other LWW types) conflicts with delayed ops because it remove ops stamps, but LWW require it to select winner.
For example op A with stamp 123 and value X that reduced to snapshot.
It not explicit written, but i think snapshot op must have same stamp as max op stamp.
But in can be op B with stamp 321.
So we have snapshot ~ with stamp 321 and value {"A":"X", "B":"some"}
Then replica receives delayed op A with stamp 124 and value Y.
Or op A with stamp 122 and value Y.
"reordering of concurrent ops does not affect the resulting state"
So result A value must depends on second op stamp. But it depends on snapshot logic and stamp.
I think not all types can have snapshots.
For LWW types we can have only compaction by removing old ops, it require nearly same space as a snapshot (difference is just op specifiers).
Or we can say that peer will reject all ops with stamp older then x, and compact ops elder then x to snapshot.
Snaposhot of Object (and may be other LWW types) conflicts with delayed ops because it remove ops stamps, but LWW require it to select winner.
For example op
Awith stamp123and valueXthat reduced to snapshot. It not explicit written, but i think snapshot op must have same stamp as max op stamp. But in can be opBwith stamp321. So we have snapshot ~ with stamp321and value{"A":"X", "B":"some"}Then replica receives delayed opAwith stamp124and valueY. Or opAwith stamp122and valueY. "reordering of concurrent ops does not affect the resulting state" So resultAvalue must depends on second op stamp. But it depends on snapshot logic and stamp.I think not all types can have snapshots. For LWW types we can have only compaction by removing old ops, it require nearly same space as a snapshot (difference is just op specifiers). Or we can say that peer will reject all ops with stamp older then x, and compact ops elder then x to snapshot.