Something that is nice about having MonadGet and MonadPut as classes is you can use the same serialization logic for different purposes. For instance, you can create a MonadPut instance based on a cryptographic hash accumulator, and now your serialization code for your type doubles for creating hashes. Maybe a bit ad hoc, but it works great!
Here are a couple other ideas for instances:
- A compressing
MonadPut and MonadGet. So you write and read from it as normal, but it's doing incremental compression and decompression. Perhaps you can get the same thing serializing to a lazy bytestring, then compressing that, but it's probably faster to just have the instances do this directly.
- An encrypting
MonadPut and MonadGet. Again, you read and write as normal, but it's encrypting / decrypting as you go.
Not sure if you'd want include any of these in this package, but just wanted to get your thoughts. Maybe such instances belong in a separate package that depends on bytes?
Something that is nice about having
MonadGetandMonadPutas classes is you can use the same serialization logic for different purposes. For instance, you can create aMonadPutinstance based on a cryptographic hash accumulator, and now your serialization code for your type doubles for creating hashes. Maybe a bit ad hoc, but it works great!Here are a couple other ideas for instances:
MonadPutandMonadGet. So you write and read from it as normal, but it's doing incremental compression and decompression. Perhaps you can get the same thing serializing to a lazy bytestring, then compressing that, but it's probably faster to just have the instances do this directly.MonadPutandMonadGet. Again, you read and write as normal, but it's encrypting / decrypting as you go.Not sure if you'd want include any of these in this package, but just wanted to get your thoughts. Maybe such instances belong in a separate package that depends on bytes?