boring

Fast, portable serialization for Clojure and ClojureScript — in a format the rest of the world can already read.

Clojure's serialization story is split three ways. nippy and hako are fast and JVM-only. fressian is portable across Clojure but speaks to no other language. transit speaks to other languages, but it is slower, and its own README — in the Java, Clojure and ClojureScript implementations alike — says what it is for:

Transit is intended primarily as a wire protocol for transferring data between applications. If storing Transit data durably, readers and writers are expected to use the same version of Transit and you are responsible for migrating/transforming/re-storing that data when and if the transit format changes.

The libraries are at 1.x; the specification is at 0.8. That is a reasonable position for a wire protocol and a poor one for an archive — and an archive is what datahike needed, which is why boring exists.

Every one of those options trades reach for speed, or speed for reach, or durability for either.

boring takes the reach: it is CBOR, an IETF standard with implementations in 26 languages. On the JVM it gives up nothing for it — it beats nippy on every payload we measure and trades wins with hako. On ClojureScript it is always smaller on the wire than transit, faster on the datom-shaped data it was built for, and slower on generic data — see Performance, which says exactly where.

(require '[boring.core :as boring])

(boring/encode {:user/name "Ada" :scores [99 100] :tags #{:x :y}})
;; => #object["[B" ...]  49 bytes

(boring/decode *1)
;; => {:user/name "Ada", :scores [99 100], :tags #{:x :y}}

The same code runs on the JVM and in the browser. A Python, Rust or Go program reads the bytes with its own CBOR library — cbor2, ciborium, fxamacker. Interop has worked examples in each.

Install

;; deps.edn
org.replikativ/boring {:mvn/version "RELEASE"}

The badge above carries the current version. Every push to main that passes CI deploys to Clojars.

JDK 9+ (no flags, no --enable-native-access) — enforced by bin/check-artifact, which builds the jar and refuses a class-file version above Java 9's. ClojureScript needs nothing.

Speed

JVM, µs/op, quiet machine, everyone's public API (a fresh writer and reader per call, as nippy/fast-freeze and hako/encode do). Lower is better; bold is the winner. Regenerate with clojure -M:bench -m published.

payload	op	boring	boring :shapes	hako	nippy
small-map	encode	0.14	0.22	0.20	0.24
small-map	decode	0.31	0.31	0.25	0.29
mixed	encode	0.13	0.21	0.18	0.27
mixed	decode	0.21	0.21	0.18	0.22
nested-map-50	encode	5.29	5.60	4.08	7.01
nested-map-50	decode	7.08	7.11	4.34	8.06
datom-maps-200	encode	26.91	15.48	15.05	45.02
datom-maps-200	decode	21.01	11.41	11.54	49.97
long-vec-1k	encode	6.74	6.76	6.65	10.91
long-vec-1k	decode	11.05	11.07	4.65	10.23
str-maps-200	encode	23.17	25.48	23.31	36.50
str-maps-200	decode	22.63	13.77	23.20	38.86

Against nippy that is a win on all twelve cells. Against hako — an experimental codec built for speed, and the fastest thing in this table — it is mixed.

Read that table with its tier in mind. It calls a fresh codec per message, which is matched across all four libraries but is not how hako is meant to be used: hako/encode builds a Writer and a confined Arena per call, and its author's intended path is the reused encode-into!. Reuse both sides and hako gains considerably more than boring does — several of the small-payload results above reverse. clojure -M:bench -m hako-ab prints the tier-matched table, in time and allocation; quote that one for a like-for-like comparison of the two libraries as they are meant to be called.

On nippy's own benchmark (clojure -M:nippy-bench — nippy's stress-data, nippy's filter, nippy's timing loop), round-trip µs and bytes:

codec	round µs	bytes
boring	595	15 326
nippy/fast	932	17 105
nippy (LZ4)	1 102	8 518
boring + zstd	1 102	4 900
nippy/encrypted	1 164	8 546
fressian	2 860	12 222
fressian + zstd	3 124	4 600
pr-str + read-string	5 369	15 880
nippy/lzma2	9 079	3 888

Raw, boring is 1.6× nippy/fast. Compressed — which is what a storage layer actually writes — boring+zstd matches nippy's default round-trip time at 1.7× smaller. Only nippy/lzma2 goes smaller, at 8× the time.

Where it loses. hako is faster on deeply nested maps (and 1.4× smaller there), 2.4× faster decoding a plain vector of integers, and marginally ahead on the two small payloads' decode. With both codecs reused it is further ahead still — roughly 1.3–1.8× on map-heavy encode and ~2× on map-heavy decode — while boring keeps the vector-heavy decode and allocates less on every payload measured. fressian+zstd stays 6% smaller than boring+zstd.

On ClojureScript the split is sharper. transit-cljs writes JSON text, so JSON.parse does its whole byte-to-structure walk in native C++ — 57% of boring's decode time is work V8 does for transit for free. On generic data transit is 1.5–2.7× faster. But with :shapes on an array of same-shaped maps — the datom shape — boring decodes 53 µs against transit's 91, at 2.9× smaller, and encodes 125 µs against 128. boring is smaller on the wire on every payload. Performance has the tables and the profile.

Handing boring a primitive array instead of a vector is worth far more than any of the above: a short[] of 1000 elements decodes 33× faster than the equivalent vector, as a standard RFC 8746 typed array that other languages read natively.

What it handles

Everything Clojure has, without a schema and without registering anything:

keywords and symbols (tag 39) · records (tag 27) · sets (tag 258) · bignums · BigDecimal with its scale intact · ratios · characters · metadata · sorted maps and sets · queues · instants, durations, periods, local dates · UUIDs · URIs (tag 32) · regexes (tag 35) · byte arrays · primitive arrays as RFC 8746 typed arrays (JVM emits 5, reads 21; CLJS reads 5) · CBOR's own simple values and undefined

Records round-trip as themselves rather than flattening to maps — the problem incognito exists to solve for fressian — and an unregistered record decodes to an inert value that re-encodes to the same tag and content (in boring's preferred form — see Extending).

46 of the 49 keys in nippy's own stress-data round-trip to an equal value, asserted in CI against the live taoensso.nippy dependency. The three that do not are decisions, and the test states each with its reason — a deftype is refused because nippy carries it through Java serialization, the mechanism behind the Java deserialization CVE family, and Instant/java.sql.Date lose their JVM class to CBOR's date tags, with :instant-type and :date-type as the escape hatches.

Metadata is preserved by default, matching nippy. = ignores metadata in Clojure, so dropping it passes every value-equality test — which is exactly why it is worth stating. {:incl-metadata? false} opts out.

Profiles

(boring/encode v {:profile :clojure})    ; default — compact, Clojure-native
(boring/encode v {:profile :interop})    ; no extensions; maximally portable
(boring/encode v {:profile :archival})   ; stable bytes AND host types — dumps
(boring/encode v {:profile :canonical})  ; RFC 8949 §4.2; agrees with cbor2 et al

:archival and :canonical both sort map keys; they differ on floats. :canonical implements RFC 8949 §4.2.2 shortest-form, so a Double may come back a Float — correct for interchange, wrong for a database dump. :archival keeps the width. Pick by whether you need to agree with other encoders (:canonical) or to get your own types back (:archival).

There is also :canonical-rfc7049, which uses clj-cbor's length-first key order instead of RFC 8949's bytewise one. It is a separate profile rather than an option on :canonical, because a signer and a verifier who disagree about a sub-option that does not appear in the profile name produce a mismatch nobody can see.

:canonical follows RFC 8949 §4.2 and the deterministic rules in draft-ietf-cbor-serialization. It is deliberately lossy — a bignum that fits becomes a plain integer, floats narrow to their shortest form. You cannot both sign a document and preserve a host type the wire has no room for. Compatibility spells out the consequences.

Status

The library is beta. The format is not.

boring is beta so that bugs can be fixed without ceremony — expect API adjustments and fixes, and please report anything that surprises you.

What you write is CBOR, an IETF standard, and that is the part you are trusting with your data. The bytes boring emits are checked on every push against independent implementations — Python's cbor2 and Rust's ciborium read a committed fixture, and boring's encoding is asserted byte-for-byte identical to cbor2's own — plus a frozen golden corpus that fails if any encoding changes. So do not expect the format to move under you: expect bug fixes.

Data written today stays readable by any complete, conformant CBOR implementation. Two of boring's constructs are extensions rather than core CBOR — stringref (tags 25/256) and shaped arrays (tag 39649, off by default) — and both are documented with the ~20 lines a foreign reader needs, worked through for Python in Interop. {:profile :interop} emits neither.

The one genuinely open item is that tag 39649 is not yet registered with IANA; it is off unless you ask for it, and enabling it opts into a number that may move. Two smaller gaps are stated where they belong rather than in a list: boring cannot yet verify that incoming bytes were canonical (Security), and no production datahike store has been round-tripped through it (Migrate codec §6).

What exists today: one shared .cljc conformance suite run on both platforms (bin/ci prints the counts; pinning them here only means they are wrong by the next commit), RFC 8949 Appendix A 82/82, the CBOR working group's not-well-formed corpus 46/47, coverage measured against nippy's stress-data, a frozen golden corpus asserted in both directions, mutation fuzzing gated in CI on both platforms, and reference readers in Python and Rust run against a committed fixture on every push.

boring is the format under konserve's CBOR serializer and kabel's CBOR wire, which is where it is exercised on real data.

Documentation

• Interop — every tag we emit, what other languages see, and runnable readers
• Performance — the numbers, the methodology, the losses
• Extending — your own tags and record types
• Compatibility — the format promise and how it is enforced
• Security — threat model, and what is explicitly not guaranteed
• Shapes — the key-stripping extension, shipped and proposed
• Migrate codec — boring vs clj-cbor vs EDN-lines as a datahike dump format: type exactness, determinism, 5M datoms under a 64 MiB heap

License

Copyright © 2026 Christian Weilbach and contributors.

Distributed under the Apache License 2.0. See LICENSE, and NOTICE for the third-party terms — nippy and the other libraries boring is measured against are EPL-1.0, declared in test and bench aliases only, and are not distributed in boring's jar.