From: Maximilian Riemensberger (riemaxi_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-09-20 22:52:59
My review is primarily from the perspective of a library consumer. I use boost
libraries and JSON on a daily basis. But neither did I ever write a boost
library nor a JSON library.
# Boost JSON Review
> Please provide in your review information you think is valuable to
> understand your choice to ACCEPT or REJECT including JSON as a
> Boost library. Please be explicit about your decision (ACCEPT or REJECT).
I recommend ACCEPTing the library into boost. It's well designed,
professionally implemented and fills an important use case. The library is
well maintained and I trust the authors to keep doing so. The documentation is
good, but I the reference documentation could use some improvements in a few
spots. Individual reference sections appear copy-pasted a bit too aggressively,
which is clearly good for the doc writer but not so much for the doc reader.
I consider none of the issues below show-stoppers that would block acceptance
into boost. This is also based in the experience that the authors are
responsive in maintaining the library (and other libraries) and I trust them
that they will use their best judgement and whether and how to address any issues.
Brief side note: I'm a user of boost libraries and I consider boost a very
important part of the C++ library ecosystem, in particular, for building
reliable and long lasting software components and systems. It sets a high bar
for acceptance. When using individual boost libraries, an important
consideration is whether the library has aged well with the evolution of the
C++ standard, whether it is currently well maintained and whether it will
remain well maintained in the future. Here boost sometimes appears to be a bit
of a mixed bag. So I consider the maintenance promise to be quite important
and in particular more important than any of the issues raise below.
I want to thank all the people involved in boost for keeping it alive,
useful and high quality.
> Some other questions you might want to consider answering:
> - What is your evaluation of the design?
I evaluated primarily the DOM interface, that is the value container, but
didn't look into the parser and serializer in detail.
The design is solid and clear. Smaller issues raised on slack during the
review have been addressed. I particularly like that it provides an easy to
use, automatic ownership allocator interface. It relieves me from the pain of
manually maintaining the life-time of non-global memory pools etc.
- The `value::is_xxx` functions inconsistently return bools or pointers. This
can have unexpected consequences if they are use from a context that does not
implicitly convert to bool. Also I really can't remember which one returns
what. For example, `is_null`, `is_bool`, `is_number`, `is_string`,
`is_structured` returns a really nice mix. (Fixed on develop)
- The library provides `initializer_list` construction for `value`. I personally
would prefer it wouldn't do that. Too many pitfalls with a missing pair of
braces causing the meaning to change quite dramatically. Still I think many
expect them in modern JSON libs. So it's up to the authors.
- The library is inconsistent about `shrink_to_fit`. `object does not have it,
`array` has it. Also the documentation does not state what `shrink_to_fit`
does, basically repeating the errors of `std::vector`. I firmly believe that
the function should either be removed or clear and precise semantics should
be documented. In it's current state the following question comes to mind:
Why would I ever want to call it?
> - What is your evaluation of the implementation?
I looked at the implementation of the `value` container. I did not look into the
parser and serializer.
The implementation appears clean and professional. The authors responded quickly
to issues raised while studying the source code.
> - What is your evaluation of the documentation?
The documentation is generally good and well structured. However, the
reference is occasionally pretty terse. Some parts of it are written with the
assumption that any user going to the reference section has recently read the
entire documentation including examples upfront.
Some comments (mostly against master and develop from early Sep 20):
* `value::storage()` should say: Return a reference to the `storage_ptr` to the
`memory_resource` associated with the value. The same thing applies to a few
* The reference for the `initializer_list` constructor could use some improvements:
e.g. "Construct an object or array from an `initializer_list`". I find this
hugely important since just the mere presence of an `initializer_list`
constructor changes the meaning of brace initialization.
* Additionally, I doesn't mention how nested `initializer_list` how are treated.
Most importantly it should show or link to some examples on how the
`initializer_list` are converted to objects, arrays, and non structured
values because some developers (if not most) might not immediately realize
from just looking at the reference documentation how nested
`initializer_list` are parsed. Maybe also reference to the
`initializer_list` constructors of `array` and `object`.
* `object::insert` is not well-documented. I did not understand what it does
when I insert an already existing key, in particular, whether assignment
takes place or not. The same is true for `object::emplace`.
* The `object` initializer constructor is listed under "Copy constructor".
* The `object::erase` return value documentation is wrong.
* `object::reserve` says "This inserts an element into the container."
* `object::swap(object)` and the friend version `swap(object,object)` have
rather inconsistent briefs.
* The initializer_list constructor for array is listed under move constructors.
* The pilfer constructors are not quite explained. There's a reference to the
paper, but I think the library should have a page that concisely explains what
it does and what a user of the library can expect from pilfered objects. In
particular, how the thing differs from move and why a user would ever want to
use it instead of move. Also the reference pages for pilfer and so on don't
explain what it does.
* `array::reserve` shows `BOOST_FORCEINLINE` in the docs.
* `value_to` is unclear about the precedence of the three listed options
(constructor, library provided conversion or `tag_invoke`) if multiple are
present provided this is actually possible. The same is true for `value_from`.
* `storage_ptr` thread safety is not documented. That's a real bummer for a
* I found it rather difficult to figure out the difference in the behavior of
`parser::write` and `parser::write_some` just from reading the documentation.
Either reference documentation should clearly state what the difference is.
I had to open both pages side by side to actually spot the wording
difference. For example, I think that the documentation of `write_some`
should clearly state that it's intended use case is for parsing multiple JSON
values from a byte stream presented through one or more buffers whereas
`write` is intended for parsing one JSON value from one or more buffers. At
least that's what I concluded from the documentation after some time.
* The `parser` documentation should either link to or inline provide one or
more examples how the parser is supposed to be used. In particular
`write_some` would benefit hugely from an example that shows how to properly
extract a stream of JSON values from a sequence of buffers.
* If I read the documentation correctly, `basic_parser::write` behave more like
`parser::write_some` than `parser::write`. I would prefer the call it
* The `basic_parser` reference documentation would benefit from either a link
to an example or an inline example.
> - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
I think the library supports a very narrow yet widespread use-case. It offers a
modern interface and high performance. So I will definitely use and I believe it
will also be useful to a wide audience.
> - Did you try to use the library? With which compiler(s)? Did you have
> any problems?
I played with it in its STANDALONE mode with gcc 9.3.
> - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick
> reading? In-depth study?
Roughly 5 hours playing with small examples, but mostly looking into the documentation
and into the code of `json::value` and related parts of the DOM implementation.
> - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
I use JSON on a regular basis across different languages including c++
(mostly nlohmann's up to date). I've not implemented a JSON library myself.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk