The Art of the Fugue: Minimizing Interleaving in Collaborative Text Editing
AI-generated Key Points
- Collaborative text editors rely on replicated lists to allow multiple users to edit a document simultaneously.
- Existing algorithms for these lists suffer from interleaved and corrupted text passages when concurrent insertions occur at the same position in the document.
- Fugue is the first algorithm that guarantees maximal non-interleaving, a new correctness property for replicated lists.
- Fugue comes in two variants: one based on a tree and another based on a list, both of which are semantically equivalent.
- Fugue offers performance comparable to state-of-the-art CRDT libraries for text editing, even with documents containing 10.5 million characters.
- Tree-Fugue's performance remained tolerable with an 18MB save size, less than two seconds to save or load, and 223MB memory usage.
- Tree-Fugue avoids interleaving of both forward and backward insertions to the maximum extent possible; concurrent edits end up in different subtrees that are traversed separately.
- Fugue represents a significant step forward in collaborative text editing by addressing an issue that has plagued replicated lists for years.
Authors: Matthew Weidner, Joseph Gentle, Martin Kleppmann
Abstract: Existing algorithms for replicated lists, which are widely used in collaborative text editors, 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. The problem has gone unnoticed for decades, and it affects both CRDTs and Operational Transformation. This paper presents Fugue, the first algorithm that guarantees maximal non-interleaving, our new correctness property for replicated lists. We present two variants of the Fugue algorithm, one based on a tree and the other based on a list, and prove that they are semantically equivalent. We also implement Fugue and demonstrate that it offers performance comparable to state-of-the-art CRDT libraries for text editing.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
Welcome to our AI assistant! Here are some important things to keep in mind:
- The assistant will only answer questions related to this specific paper.
- Please note that this is not a bot for casual chatting.
- If you want the answer in a language other than the language you chose for navigating the website, simply add "TRANSLATE IN LANGUAGE L" at the end of your query (replace "LANGUAGE L" with the language of your choice).
- For example, you could ask "Can you extract the most important aspect of the paper? TRANSLATE IN SPANISH".
- If you want to keep the history of your questions/answers you should create an account.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through atree representation
Look for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.