[docs] ADR: Centralized Layout Management with CRDT (#5233)

Adds ADR-0004 documenting the architectural decision to implement centralized layout management using CRDT backing store with command pattern architecture.

## Key Technical Decisions Documented

- **Centralized State Management**: Move from scattered `node.position` mutations to single authoritative layout store
- **CRDT Foundation**: Yjs-backed store provides conflict resolution and collaboration readiness
- **Command Pattern**: All spatial mutations flow through explicit commands for undo/redo and system coordination
- **Reactive Architecture**: Transition from O(n) diff-based change detection to O(1) signal-based reactivity

## Current Architecture Problems Addressed

- Performance bottlenecks from polling-based change detection in complex workflows
- Position conflicts between LiteGraph canvas and DOMwidgets.ts overlay systems
- Inability to support collaborative editing due to direct mutation patterns
- Renderer lock-in preventing alternative rendering backends

Author: christian-byrne

docs/adr/0004-crdt-based-layout-system.md

@@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
+# 4. Centralized Layout Management with CRDT
+
+Date: 2025-08-27
+
+## Status
+
+Proposed
+
+## Context
+
+ComfyUI's node graph editor currently suffers from fundamental architectural limitations around spatial data management that prevent us from achieving key product goals.
+
+### Current Architecture Problems
+
+The existing system allows each node to directly mutate its position within LiteGraph's canvas renderer. This creates several critical issues:
+
+1. **Performance Bottlenecks**: UI updates require full graph traversals to detect position changes. Large workflows (100+ nodes) can create bottlenecks during interactions due to this O(n) polling approach.
+
+2. **Position Conflicts**: Multiple systems (LiteGraph canvas, DOMwidgets.ts overlays) currently compete to control node positions. Future Vue widget overlays will compound this maintenance burden.
+
+3. **No Collaboration Foundation**: Direct position mutations make concurrent editing impossible—there's no mechanism to merge conflicting position updates from multiple users.
+
+4. **Renderer Lock-in**: Spatial data is tightly coupled to LiteGraph's canvas implementation, preventing alternative rendering approaches (WebGL, DOM, other libraries, hybrid approaches).
+
+5. **Inefficient Change Detection**: While LiteGraph provides some events, many operations require polling via changeTracker.ts. The current undo/redo system performs expensive diffs on every interaction rather than using reactive push/pull signals, creating performance bottlenecks and blocking efficient animations and viewport culling.
+
+   This represents a fundamental architectural limitation: diff-based systems scale O(n) with graph complexity (traverse entire structure to detect changes), while signal-based reactive systems scale O(1) with actual changes (data mutations automatically notify subscribers). Modern frameworks (Vue 3, Angular signals, SolidJS) have moved to reactive approaches for precisely this performance reason. 
+
+### Business Context
+
+- Performance issues emerge with workflow complexity (100+ nodes)
+- The AI workflow community increasingly expects collaborative features (similar to Figma, Miro)
+- Accessibility requirements will necessitate DOM-based rendering options
+- Technical debt compounds with each new spatial feature
+
+This decision builds on [ADR-0001 (Merge LiteGraph)](0001-merge-litegraph-into-frontend.md), which enables the architectural restructuring proposed here.
+
+## Decision
+
+We will implement a centralized layout management system using CRDT (Conflict-free Replicated Data Types) with command pattern architecture to separate spatial data from rendering behavior.
+
+### Centralized State Management Foundation
+
+This solution applies proven centralized state management patterns:
+
+- **Centralized Store**: All spatial data (position, size, bounds, transform) managed in a single CRDT-backed store
+- **Command Interface**: All mutations flow through explicit commands rather than direct property access
+- **Observer Pattern**: Independent systems (rendering, interaction, layout) subscribe to state changes
+- **Domain Separation**: Layout logic completely separated from rendering and UI concerns
+
+This provides single source of truth, predictable state updates, and natural system decoupling—solving our core architectural problems.
+
+### Core Architecture
+
+1. **Centralized Layout Store**: A Yjs CRDT maintains all spatial data in a single authoritative store:
+   ```typescript
+   // Instead of: node.position = {x, y}
+   layoutStore.moveNode(nodeId, {x, y})
+   ```
+
+2. **Command Pattern**: All spatial mutations flow through explicit commands:
+   ```
+   User Input → Commands → Layout Store → Observer Notifications → Renderers
+   ```
+
+3. **Observer-Based Systems**: Multiple independent systems subscribe to layout changes:
+   - **Rendering Systems**: LiteGraph canvas, WebGL, DOM accessibility renderers
+   - **Interaction Systems**: Drag handlers, selection, hover states
+   - **Layout Systems**: Auto-layout, alignment, distribution
+   - **Animation Systems**: Smooth transitions, physics simulations
+
+4. **Reactive Updates**: Store changes propagate through observers, eliminating polling and enabling efficient system coordination.
+
+### Implementation Strategy
+
+**Phase 1: Parallel System**
+- Build CRDT layout store alongside existing system
+- Layout store initially mirrors LiteGraph changes via observers
+- Gradually migrate user interactions to use command interface
+- Maintain full backward compatibility
+
+**Phase 2: Inversion of Control**
+- CRDT store becomes single source of truth
+- LiteGraph receives position updates via reactive subscriptions
+- Enable alternative renderers and advanced features
+
+### Why Centralized State + CRDT?
+
+This combination provides both architectural and technical benefits:
+
+**Centralized State Benefits:**
+- **Single Source of Truth**: All layout data managed in one place, eliminating conflicts
+- **System Decoupling**: Rendering, interaction, and layout systems operate independently
+- **Predictable Updates**: Clear data flow makes debugging and testing easier
+- **Extensibility**: Easy to add new layout behaviors without modifying existing systems
+
+**CRDT Benefits:**
+- **Conflict Resolution**: Automatic merging eliminates position conflicts between systems
+- **Collaboration-Ready**: Built-in support for multi-user editing
+- **Eventual Consistency**: Guaranteed convergence to same state across all clients
+
+**Yjs-Specific Benefits:**
+- **Event-Driven**: Native observer pattern removes need for polling
+- **Selective Updates**: Only changed nodes trigger system updates
+- **Fine-Grained Changes**: Efficient delta synchronization
+
+## Consequences
+
+### Positive
+
+- **Eliminates Polling**: Observer pattern removes O(n) graph traversals, improving performance
+- **System Modularity**: Independent systems can be developed, tested, and optimized separately  
+- **Renderer Flexibility**: Easy to add WebGL, DOM accessibility, or hybrid rendering systems
+- **Rich Interactions**: Command pattern enables robust undo/redo, macros, and interaction history
+- **Collaboration-Ready**: CRDT foundation enables real-time multi-user editing
+- **Conflict Resolution**: Eliminates position "snap-back" behavior between competing systems
+- **Better Developer Experience**: Clear separation of concerns and predictable data flow patterns
+
+### Negative
+
+- **Learning Curve**: Team must understand CRDT concepts and centralized state management
+- **Migration Complexity**: Gradual migration of existing direct property access requires careful coordination
+- **Memory Overhead**: Yjs library (~30KB) plus operation history storage
+- **CRDT Performance**: CRDTs have computational overhead compared to direct property access
+- **Increased Abstraction**: Additional layer between user interactions and visual updates
+
+### Risk Mitigations
+
+- Provide comprehensive migration documentation and examples
+- Build compatibility layer for gradual, low-risk migration
+- Implement operation history pruning for long-running sessions
+- Phase implementation to validate approach before full migration
+
+## Notes
+
+This centralized state + CRDT architecture follows patterns from modern collaborative applications:
+
+**Centralized State Management**: Similar to Redux/Vuex patterns in complex web applications, but with CRDT backing for collaboration. This provides predictable state updates while enabling real-time multi-user features.
+
+**CRDT in Collaboration**: Tools like Figma, Linear, and Notion use similar approaches for real-time collaboration, demonstrating the effectiveness of separating authoritative data from presentation logic.
+
+**Future Capabilities**: This foundation enables advanced features that would be difficult with the current architecture:
+- Macro recording and workflow automation
+- Programmatic layout optimization and constraints
+- API-driven workflow construction  
+- Multiple simultaneous renderers (canvas + accessibility DOM)
+- Real-time collaborative editing
+- Advanced spatial features (physics, animations, auto-layout)
+
+The architecture provides immediate single-user benefits while creating infrastructure for collaborative and advanced spatial features.
+
+## References
+
+- [Yjs Documentation](https://docs.yjs.dev/)
+- [CRDTs: The Hard Parts](https://martin.kleppmann.com/2020/07/06/crdt-hard-parts-hydra.html) by Martin Kleppmann
+- [Figma's Multiplayer Technology](https://www.figma.com/blog/how-figmas-multiplayer-technology-works/)