What about CBOR?

[bryceschober]

@stephenberry What do you think about implementing support for CBOR? I know that you probably designed & implemented BEVE partially because of CBOR's limitations, but now that CBOR is going to be used for more standardized IOT-related protocols, including for standardizing firmware update packages (SUIT) via the CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) standard...

Anyway, I wonder what the level of complexity would be in implementing serialization for cbor alongside your s/binary/beve/ implementation?

[stephenberry]

@bryceschober, I've used CBOR a bit and studied the specification, but I don't currently have a use for it and have more pressing developments for Glaze.

However, if someone wanted to contribute to Glaze with CBOR support, I would happily add them to the Glaze team and appreciate the additional format.

CBOR does have a number of downsides, especially when it comes to performance, which is why I've gone with BEVE. But, I understand its use as a standard and I think it makes sense for Glaze because of its close relation to JSON.

A CBOR implementation in Glaze would likely be extremely high performing versus current implementations.

[bryceschober]

So @stephenberry do you have any guess as to the complexity would be in implementing serialization for cbor alongside your s/binary/beve/ implementation? Would the beve support be the best baseline for the points to hit for CBOR support?

[stephenberry]

@bryceschober, the beve code would provide you with the glaze architecture (see from_binary and to_binary specializations). You would then need to refer to the CBOR specification for the actual binary layout.

If you wanted to start out, just try implementing reading/writing booleans or integers.