←back to thread

Show HN: Apache Fory Rust – 10-20x faster serialization than JSON/Protobuf

(fory.apache.org)
66 points chaokunyang | 8 comments | 28 Oct 25 17:58 UTC | HN request time: 0.796s | source | bottom

Serialization framework with some interesting numbers: 10-20x faster on nested objects than json/protobuf.

  Technical approach: compile-time codegen (no reflection), compact binary protocol with meta-packing, little-endian layout optimized for modern CPUs.

  Unique features that other fast serializers don't have:
  - Cross-language without IDL files (Rust ↔ Python/Java/Go)
  - Trait object serialization (Box<dyn Trait>)
  - Automatic circular reference handling
  - Schema evolution without coordination

  Happy to discuss design trade-offs.

  Benchmarks: https://fory.apache.org/docs/benchmarks/rust
1. mlhamel ◴[28 Oct 25 19:35 UTC] No.45737888[source]▶
I'm wondering how do you share you shared types between languages if there's no schema ?
replies(4): >>45738116 #>>45738121 #>>45738151 #>>45738575 #
2. athorax ◴[28 Oct 25 19:49 UTC] No.45738116[source]▶
I am confused on this as well, they list polyglot teams[0] as their top use case and consider not needing schema files a feature

[0] https://fory.apache.org/blog/2025/10/29/fory_rust_versatile_...

3. kenhwang ◴[28 Oct 25 19:50 UTC] No.45738121[source]▶
Looks like there's a type mapping chart for supported types: https://fory.apache.org/docs/docs/guide/xlang_type_mapping

Otherwise, the schema seems to be derived from the class being serialized for typed languages, or otherwise annotated in code. The serializer and deserializer code must be manually written to be compatible instead of both sides being codegen'd to match from a schema file. He's the example I found for python: https://fory.apache.org/docs/docs/guide/python_serialization...

replies(1): >>45742365 #
4. fabiensanglard ◴[28 Oct 25 19:51 UTC] No.45738151[source]▶
Not explaining this case makes me wonder how much this lib is actually used in production. This was also the first question I asked myself.
replies(1): >>45742372 #
5. stmw ◴[28 Oct 25 20:20 UTC] No.45738575[source]▶
I am skeptical that it's possible to make this work in the long run.
replies(1): >>45742386 #
6. chaokunyang ◴[29 Oct 25 03:41 UTC] No.45742365[source]▶
You don’t need to hand‑write serializer code. In typed languages you just define your class or struct as usual; in dynamic languages you can use type hints.

When running in compatible mode, Fory automatically derives a compact schema from those definitions at runtime time and sends it along to peers for the first time serialization. That way, both sides know the structure without needing a separate schema file.

The idea is to make cross‑language exchange work out‑of‑the‑box, while still allowing teams to add an explicit IDL later if they want a single source of truth.

7. chaokunyang ◴[29 Oct 25 03:42 UTC] No.45742372[source]▶
This is our first release for Fory Rust. The Java and Python bindings has been used widely. You can see from https://fory.apache.org/user
8. chaokunyang ◴[29 Oct 25 03:45 UTC] No.45742386[source]▶
I get your concern — for one or two languages, skipping an IDL can work well and keeps things simple.

But once you’re dealing with three or more languages, I agree an IDL becomes valuable as a single source of truth. That’s work we’ve started: adding optional IDL support so teams can generate data structures in each language from one shared definition.