Re: [boost] RE: Serialization Library Review

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-17 17:55:20

From: "Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]>
> From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
>
> >FWIW, in my experience, XML is a better test for whether a serialization
> >library handles custom formats well. Sequence-based, header-only formats
are
> >very similar, but a reasonable XML serializer creates a tree-like
> >representation, with nested tags.
>
> After a cursory investigation as to what it would take to make an XML
> archive, I've concluded that:
>
> a) I don't thing XML is rich enough to capture all possible C++ data
structures
>
> b) This would imply the creation of a system of reflection for C++
>     i) I not convinced this is a good idea
>     ii) should be dealt with as an indepent project in any case
>
> c) XML has a central task to represent data in a platform/programming
language
> independent way.  Serialization has the central task of saving/restore the
> totality of the state of C++ data structures.  These tasks are not
identical
> and any course of action based on the presumption that they are is
> doomed to be frustrating an most likely a failure in my opinion.

FWIW, my experience directly contradicts all of your points. It is possible
that I misunderstood them, of course, as you haven't provided details.