Design guidelines and justification
In this document I'll attempt to explain some of the design decisions that I've made in circe, and to justify some of the gaps in the API where circe doesn't (currently) support the same kinds of functionality you'll find in other Scala JSON libraries. I'm hoping to close all of these gaps, but in most cases they exist because I've put constraints on the project that I don't want to relax until I've experimented with other solutions.
While the wording here may come across as dogmatic, this isn't because I think these principles are the "right" way to do things. These positions are an experiment that's informed by my individual experience, and everything here is up for debate.
Please don't read this as a general Scala style guide. For one thing it's entirely about writing library code and designing a library API, and some of it is JSON-specific, but it's also based on lots of more-or-less well-considered personal preferences that are subject to change.
Your model code shouldn't (have to) know anything about serialization. Sometimes it's appropriate to have serialization code in your model, and sometimes it isn't. As a serialization library, circe should not penalize the cases where it's not appropriate, and the same functionality should be available in both situations, with no more than a single extra import being required in the latter.
What this means concretely: MetaRest is a very interesting project, and many features in circe are directly inspired by MetaRest, including incomplete decoder derivation. circe is in a sense the opposite of MetaRest, though, and
circe-corewill never include e.g. annotations that are intended to be used on case class members to guide serialization.
You generally shouldn't need or want to work with JSON ASTs directly. This is part of the reason I couldn't personally care less about SLIP-28: I think JSON is a horrible serialization format, and I want to help people not have to think about JSON. If you absolutely have to work with JSON values directly, you at least shouldn't have to worry about keeping track of traversal history or manually handling modification of deeply nested structures (i.e. you should be using a relatively nice API like
ACursoror the facilities supported by Monocle in
What this means concretely: If something like SLIP-28 ever actually lands in the standard library, I'll probably adopt it (assuming it doesn't violate other design principles here—which is a huge assumption), but I hope most users won't even notice that change.
Let a thousand modules bloom (at least until 1.0). I'd prefer to err on the side of modularity, with major new functionality being introduced first in new sub-projects, especially if it requires new dependencies. I'd also prefer to be able to build modules together for now, which means there are a lot of sub-projects in the circe repo, and they aren't all necessarily at the same level of maturity (even though they share a version and are published together).
At the 1.0 mark I plan to re-evaluate all sub-projects, and some may be spun off to separate projects (where they can be independently versioned), or just retired if they aren't being used or maintained.
What this means concretely: The root directory of the project is kind of a zoo, and complete builds can take a while.
Implicit scope should not be used for configuration. Lots of people have asked for a way to configure generic codec derivation to use e.g. a
typefield as the discriminator for sealed trait hierarchies, or to use snake case for member names. argonaut-shapeless supports this quite straightforwardly with a
JsonCoproductCodectype that the user can provide implicitly.
I don't want to criticize this approach—it's entirely idiomatic Scala, and it often works well in practice—but I personally don't like using implicit values for configuration, and I'd like to avoid it in circe until I am 100% convinced that there's no alternative way to provide this functionality.
What this means concretely: You'll probably never see an implicit argument that isn't a type class instance—i.e. that isn't a type constructor applied to a type in your model—in circe, and configuration of generic codec derivation is going to be relatively limited (compared to e.g. argonaut-shapeless) until we find a nice way to do this kind of thing with type tags or something similar.
Implicit conversions aren't worth it. In my experience implicit conversions are loans against your own (and your users') future understanding of your code.
What this means concretely: Any proposed changes including implicit conversions will need to make a very strong case for their necessity. There are two exceptions: conversions from one type class instance to another, and conversion to a syntax-enabling
Opsclass if for some reason it's not possible to use an implicit class (although see the following point).
Syntactic extension via enrichment methods should be kept behind a
syntaximport. This is line with the general principle that magic should be opt-in.
What this means concretely: If you want to be able to write things like
Map("foo" -> List(1, 2, 3)).asJson, you'll need to import
Runtime reflection: not even once. As Rob Norris says: "programs should be invariant under rename refactoring, therefore no reflection". See this Stack Overflow answer for more discussion, including a defense of compile-time reflection.
What this means concretely: It's unlikely you'll ever see an
Anyin circe except in code that's absolutely necessary for JVM or Scala.js compatibility.
The public API should not contain unnecessary methods. I'm all for TMTOWTDI at certain levels of abstraction, but I think redundancy in library API design is a terrible way to treat users (especially new ones).
What this means concretely: If the standard way to create a successful
ACursor.ok, there should not be an equivalent
HCursor. Don't even get me started on symbolic operator aliases.
The public API should not contain unnecessary types. Argonaut (like many other great serialization libraries) includes a
Codectype class that combines
Decoder, but it's only really useful for definitions: it allows you to define an encoder-decoder pair together, but its generally not useful as a type constraint, since many types with both
Decoderinstances will not have a
Codecinstance. I personally find this confusing, and would prefer to keep convenience-oriented types like this out of the API.
What this means concretely: There's unlikely to be a
Codecin circe until we come up with a clean way to make it useful as a type constraint (although if demand gets loud enough I would be willing to consider compromise here).
Avoid variance, but without burdening users. This isn't a popular decision (even Argonaut's codec type classes were co- and contravariant until 6.1), but I'm not convinced it's worth it, especially given the way that generic derivation works for ADTs (i.e.
What this means concretely: You may occasionally need to upcast to get the right encoder to kick in.
Not all ADTs should expose their constructors. In some cases, including most significantly here the
io.circe.Jsontype, we don't want to encourage users to think of the ADT leaves as having meaningful types. A JSON value "is" a boolean or a string or a unit or a
JsonObject. Introducing types like
JNumber, etc. into the public API just confuses things.
What this means concretely: You can't deconstruct JSON values with pattern matching. Instead you'll need to use
The library implementation does not model usage. People often complain about how functional programming in Scala is painfully slow, and while there are reasons that this will be true (to some extent) for the foreseeable future, I think the problem is made worse than it needs to be by the approach that libraries like Scalaz and Argonaut take to the correctness-performance trade-off.
In circe the public API is almost exclusively purely functional, but there is extensive use of mutability, casts, imperative constructions, etc. behind the scenes. While we want correctness, we believe that for a Scala library at this level, letting our tests verify correctness instead of the compiler may be necessary in some cases to achieve the performance we want.
What this means concretely: "Idiomatic" usage needs to be modelled by example projects, not the library implementation. Unfortunately right now these example projects don't really exist, but we're working on it.