Re: [boost] [serialization] Regressions?

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-01 02:55:02

"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>
>> But seriously, that's not what I mean by reliable.  I mean "a save
>> function that's doing something sensical."  Either the author of the
>> save function tells the caller whether the object will be tracked, and
>> the caller knows whether that behavior is appropriate given the
>> context, or there's little point in making the save call to begin
>> with.  I mean, you're not going to do
>>
>>       try
>>       {
>>           save_call_with_tracking(ar, x);
>>       }
>>       catch(tracking_error&)
>>       {
>>           save_call_without_tracking(ar, x);
>>       }
>>
>> right?
>
> The user of my application will do something along these lines,
> yes. :-)

The /user/ of your /application/ is a programmer?  I'm sorry, but
could you fill in some detail here?  You're baffling me.

> When you have a complex data structure, it isn't exactly trivial to 
> determine in advance whether it's "tracking safe" to attempt a save. If you 
> try to do that, 

You mean "to determine in advance...?"

> you'll end up duplicating the save functionality. 

How?

> Consider something like
>
> vector< shared_ptr<A> > v;
>
> where the A is an abstract class and the implementations are put into v from 
> separate parts of the program written by different people.

Well, aside from not being able to deserialize deleters, I'm not sure
what the problem is.  In your scheme, AFAICT, a pointer save never
directly triggers an exception anyway.  Am I missing something there?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com