std.serialization: pre-voting review / discussion

[Dicebot]

On Monday, 12 August 2013 at 13:27:45 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> Stepping up to act as a Review Manager for Jacob Carlborg 
> std.serialization
>
> ---- Input ----
>
> Code: 
> https://github.com/jacob-carlborg/phobos/tree/serialization
>
> Documentation: 
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18386187/docs/std.serialization/index.html
>
> Previous review thread: 
> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/adyanbsdsxsfdpvoozne@forum.dlang.org
>
> ---- Changes since last review ----
>
> - Sources has been integrated into Phobos source tree
> - DDOC documentation has been provided in a form it should look 
> like on dlang.org
> - Most utility functions/template code depends on have been 
> inlined. Remaining `package` utility modules:
>     * std.serialization.archives.xmldocument
>     * std.serialization.attribute
>     * std.serialization.registerwrapper
>
> ---- Information for reviewers ----
>
> Goal of this thread is to detect if there are any outstanding 
> issues that need to fixed before formal "yes"/"no" voting 
> happens. If no critical objections will arise, voting will 
> begin starting with a next week.
>
> Please take this seriously: "If you identify problems along the 
> way, please note if they are minor, serious, or showstoppers." 
> (http://wiki.dlang.org/Review/Process). This information later 
> will be used to determine if library is ready for voting.
>
> If there are any frequent Phobos contributors / core developers 
> please pay extra attention to submission code style and fitting 
> into overall Phobos guidelines and structure.
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> Let the thread begin.
>
> Jacob, it is probably worth creating a pull request with latest 
> rebased version of your proposal to simplify getting a quick 
> overview of changes. Also please tell if there is anything you 
> want/need to implement before merging.

OK, time to make a short summary.

There have been mentioned several issues / improvement 
possibilities. I don't think they prevent voting and it is up to 
Jacob to decide what he want to incorporate from it.

However, there are two things that do matter in my opinion - 
pre-UDA part of API and uncertainty about range-based lazy 
approach. Important thing here is that while library can be 
included with plenty of features lacking we can't really afford 
to break its API only few releases later just to add/remove these 
features.

So as a review manager, I think voting should be delayed until 
API is ready to address lazy range-based work model. No actual 
implementation is required but

1) it should be possible to do it later without breaking user code
2) library should not make an assumption about implementation 
being lazy or eager

That is my understanding based on current knowledge of Phobos 
modules, please correct me if I am wrong.

Jacob, please tell if you have any objections or, if this 
decision sounds reasonable - just contact me via e-mail when you 
will find std.serialization suitable for final voting. I think it 
is pretty clear that package itself is considered useful and 
welcome to Phobos.