Summary The Art of the Fugue Minimizing Interleaving in Collaborative Text Editing arxiv.org
16,345 words - PDF document - View PDF document
One Line
Collaborative text editing algorithms encounter interleaving issues leading to corruption of concurrently inserted text passages, particularly in replicated list CRDTs that use unique identifiers and ascending order sorting.
Slides
Slide Presentation (8 slides)
Key Points
- Existing algorithms for replicated lists in collaborative text editing suffer from interleaving, which can result in corrupted and unreadable text.
- Replicated list CRDTs assign unique identifiers to list elements and sort them in ascending order, but this can still lead to undesirable interleaving effects.
- Interleaving is a common problem in collaborative text editing algorithms, including Operational Transformation (OT) and Conflict-free Replicated Data Types (CRDTs).
- The Fugue interface uses an ordered sequence of values and a tree structure to establish a total order for list elements.
- The authors compared their implementation, Tree-Fugue, to existing implementations in the crdt-benchmarks repository using a real-world text-editing trace benchmark.
- The left-origin tree and the concept of "maximal non-interleaving" are introduced as solutions to minimize interleaving in collaborative text editing.
- The Yjs library's list CRDT implementation is widely used and has high performance, similar to List-Fugue.
- The document includes references to various studies and reports on replicated data types, concurrency control, and collaborative editing systems.
Summaries
33 word summary
Collaborative text editing algorithms have a problem of interleaving, causing corruption of concurrently inserted text passages. This issue arises in replicated list CRDTs that assign unique identifiers and sort elements in ascending order.
43 word summary
Existing algorithms for collaborative text editing suffer from the problem of interleaving, where concurrently inserted text passages can become corrupted and unreadable. This issue arises in replicated list CRDTs that assign unique identifiers to list elements and sort them in ascending order. Inter
640 word summary
Existing algorithms for replicated lists in collaborative text editing suffer from a problem: when two users concurrently insert text at the same position in the document, the merged outcome may interleave the inserted text passages, resulting in corrupted and potentially unreadable text. This problem
Several replicated list CRDTs assign a unique identifier to each list element and sort them in ascending order. When multiple users concurrently insert new elements between two existing elements, the result can be an undesirable interleaving effect. This issue has been informally known
Interleaving is a common problem in algorithms for collaborative text editing, including both Operational Transformation (OT) and Conflict-free Replicated Data Types (CRDTs). Interleaving occurs when edits made by different users are combined in an unexpected order,
The Fugue interface is an ordered sequence of values, with operations including insert and delete. The state of each replica is a tree, where each non-root node is labeled with a unique ID and value. The list order is determined by the depth
The excerpt discusses the need to establish a total order for list elements in collaborative text editing. The total order should satisfy two conditions: (a) the values returned by a replica's query should be in the order they were received, minus any deleted elements
The authors compared their implementation, Tree-Fugue, to existing implementations in the crdt-benchmarks repository. They used a benchmark that replayed a real-world text-editing trace to evaluate the performance of each implementation. Tree-Fugue was
In collaborative text editing, it is important to minimize interleaving, where one user's input is mixed with another's. The left-origin tree is a tree of list elements in which each element's parent is its left origin. The tree is rooted at
The paper discusses the problem of interleaving in collaborative text editing and proposes a new definition called "maximal non-interleaving." The Fugue list CRDT is introduced as a solution that satisfies this definition. Two formulations of Fugue,
The following URLs were mentioned in the document: https://github.com/yjs/yjs (December 2022), https://github.com/ept/insert-interleaving (February 2018), https://github.com/automerge
This text excerpt consists of a list of references and a section discussing examples of interleaving in different algorithms for collaborative text editing. The references include various studies and reports on replicated data types, concurrency control, and collaborative editing systems. The section on interleaving
In the document "The Art of the Fugue: Minimizing Interleaving in Collaborative Text Editing," several algorithms for minimizing interleaving in collaborative text editing are discussed. The first algorithm, called adOPTed and TTF backward interle
In RGA, backward interleaving occurs when insertions are made in reverse order. In Yjs, backward interleaving only occurs when insertions happen in reverse order across multiple replica IDs. The GOT algorithm exhibits an anomaly where characters are reordered in the
The article presents a proof that weak forward non-interleaving holds even if an element was not inserted concurrently with all other elements. It also proves that the list order is a depth-first pre-order traversal over the left-origin tree. The article then shows
Both users receive b and c, with b < c and e, g having right origin c. By backward non-interleaving, b < e, g. The final orders according to forward non-interleaving are abdfegc, ab
List-Fugue is semantically equivalent to Double RGA with the lexicographic tiebreaker. The total order of Double RGA is denoted by <. The goal is to prove that the replica inserts the next element (elt) into the
The Yjs library's list CRDT implementation is widely used and has high performance. The algorithm underlying Yjs is similar to List-Fugue, with the exception of the insert effector. Yjs's total order is a depth-first pre-order
We have proven that the value "left" in the loop sets is determined by whether or not it is a candidate placeholder or its descendant. The correct value of "left" is the greatest descendant of the greatest candidate placeholder, or "elt.leftOrigin