Re: [boost] [serialization][trunk]please bring us archive helpers back

From: JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-09-08 16:22:00

----- Mensaje original -----
De: Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]>
Fecha: Sábado, Septiembre 8, 2007 5:32 pm
Asunto: Re: [boost] [serialization][trunk]please bring us archive 
helpers back
Para: boost_at_[hidden]

[...]
> I totally understand and am in total agreement.  I made an
> exception to this general rule for shared_ptr which I felt
> I had to do at the time.
> 
> But I think you missed the main point of my last message.

Yep, I guess so, excuse my lack of understanding. Please
bear with me.
 
> The 1.33 system has an api for attaching helpers to to
> an archive class.  This was only used (as far as I knew)
> and only needed to address the special problems associated
> with the serialization of shared_ptr.  This introduced
> code into the library for handling one special case - which
> we both agree is a bad idea.  Now you're telling me
> that you need it for other types - well that was news to me.
> 
> So I'm thinking that a better solution might be to create
> a class "helper manager" which contains the functionality
> of the 1.33 and mixing in THIS class at the bottom
> of the hierarchy.  So things would give you back the
> functionality of 1.33 while still removing inappropriate
> API decoration of the base classes.

So, if I'm getting you right now, what you propose is to
have a naked_text_archive without helper support nor
special shared_ptr support and text_archive with both helper
and shared_ptr stuff? Is the goal of this move to have
the helper API back in place without making it part
of the Archive concept?

Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo