ADR 0001 20250106 Use Yjs For Docs Editing

Decision TLDR;

We will use Yjs a CRDT-based library for the collaborative editing of the documents.

Status

Accepted

Context

We need to implement a collaborative editing feature for the documents that supports real-time collaboration, offline capabilities, and seamless integration with our Django backend.

Considered alternatives

ProseMirror

A robust toolkit for building rich-text editors with collaboration capabilities.

Pros	Cons
Mature ecosystem	Complex integration with Django
Rich text editing features	Steeper learning curve
Used by major companies	More complex to implement offline support
Large community

ShareDB

Real-time database backend based on Operational Transformation.

Pros	Cons
Battle-tested in production	Complex setup required
Strong consistency model	Requires specific backend architecture
Good documentation	Less flexible with different backends
	Higher latency compared to CRDTs

Convergence

Complete enterprise solution for real-time collaboration.

Pros	Cons
Full-featured solution	Commercial licensing
Built-in presence features	Less community support
Enterprise support	More expensive
Good offline support	Overkill for basic needs

CRDT-based Solutions Comparison

A CRDT-based library specifically designed for real-time collaboration.

Category	Pros	Cons
Technical Implementation	• Native real-time collaboration
• No central conflict resolution needed
• Works well with Django backend
• Automatic state synchronization	• Learning curve for CRDT concepts
• More complex initial setup
• Additional metadata overhead
User Experience	• Instant local updates
• Works offline by default
• Low latency
• Smooth concurrent editing	• Eventual consistency might cause brief inconsistencies
• UI must handle temporary conflicts
Performance	• Excellent scaling with multiple users
• Reduced server load
• Efficient network usage
• Good memory optimization (especially Yjs)	• Slightly higher memory usage
• Initial state sync can be larger
Development	• No need to build conflict resolution
• Simple integration with text editors
• Future-proof architecture	• Team needs to learn new concepts
• Fewer ready-made solutions
• May need to build some features from scratch
Maintenance	• Less server infrastructure
• Simpler deployment
• Fewer points of failure	• Debugging can be more complex
• State management requires careful handling
Business Impact	• Better offline support for users
• Scales well as user base grows
• No licensing costs (with Yjs)	• Initial development time might be longer
• Team training required

Yjs

• Type: State-based CRDT
• Implementation: JavaScript/TypeScript
• Features:
  • Rich text collaboration
  • Shared types (Array, Map, XML)
  • Binary encoding
  • P2P support
• Performance: Excellent for text editing
• Memory Usage: Optimized
• License: MIT

Automerge

• Type: Operation-based CRDT
• Implementation: JavaScript/Rust
• Features:
  • JSON-like data structures
  • Change history
  • Undo/Redo
  • Binary format
• Performance: Good, with Rust backend
• Memory Usage: Higher than Yjs
• License: MIT

Legion

• Type: State-based CRDT
• Implementation: Rust with JS bindings
• Features:
  • High performance
  • Memory efficient
  • Binary protocol
• Performance: Excellent
• Memory Usage: Very efficient
• License: Apache 2.0

Diamond Types

• Type: Operation-based CRDT
• Implementation: TypeScript
• Features:
  • Specialized for text
  • Small memory footprint
  • Simple API
• Performance: Good for text
• Memory Usage: Efficient
• License: MIT

Comparison Table:

Feature	Yjs	Automerge	Legion	Diamond Types
Text Editing	✅ Excellent	✅ Good	⚠️ Basic	✅ Excellent
Structured Data	✅	✅	✅	⚠️
Memory Efficiency	✅ High	⚠️ Medium	✅ Very High	✅ High
Network Efficiency	✅	⚠️	✅	✅
Maturity	✅	✅	⚠️	⚠️
Community Size	✅ Large	✅ Large	⚠️ Small	⚠️ Small
Documentation	✅	✅	⚠️	⚠️
Backend Options	✅ Many	✅ Many	⚠️ Limited	⚠️ Limited

Key Differences:

1. Implementation Approach:

   • Yjs: Optimized for text and rich-text editing
   • Automerge: General-purpose JSON CRDT
   • Legion: Performance-focused with Rust
   • Diamond Types: Specialized for text collaboration

2. Performance Characteristics:

   • Yjs: Best for text editing scenarios
   • Automerge: Good all-around performance
   • Legion: Excellent raw performance
   • Diamond Types: Optimized for text

3. Ecosystem Integration:

   • Yjs: Wide range of integrations
   • Automerge: Good JavaScript ecosystem
   • Legion: Limited but growing
   • Diamond Types: Focused on text editors

This analysis reinforces our choice of Yjs for the CRDT-based option as it provides:

• Best-in-class text editing performance
• Mature ecosystem
• Active community
• Excellent documentation
• Wide range of backend options

Decision

After evaluating the alternatives, we choose Yjs for the following reasons:

1. Technical Fit:

• Native CRDT support ensures reliable collaboration
• Excellent offline capabilities
• Good performance characteristics
• Flexible backend integration options

2. Project Requirements Match:

• Easy integration with our Django backend
• Supports our core collaborative features
• Manageable learning curve for the team

3. Community & Support:

• Active development
• Growing community
• Good documentation
• Open source with MIT license

Comparison of Key Features:

Feature	Yjs (CRDT)	ProseMirror	ShareDB	Convergence
Real-time Collaboration	✅	✅	✅	✅
Offline Support	✅	⚠️	⚠️	✅
Django Integration	Easy	Complex	Complex	Moderate
Learning Curve	Medium	High	High	Medium
Cost	Free	Free	Free	Paid
Community Size	Growing	Large	Medium	Small

Consequences

Positive

• Simplified implementation of real-time collaboration
• Good developer experience
• Future-proof technology choice
• No licensing costs

Negative

• Team needs to learn CRDT concepts
• Newer technology compared to alternatives
• May need to build some features available out-of-the-box in other solutions

Risks

• Community support might not grow as expected
• May discover limitations as we scale