Robert Ramey writes:
>David Raulo wrote:
>
>> - this is not mentionned anywhere in the documentation or in the API.
>> - you have at least one user who lost backward archive compatibility
>> because of this.
>>
>> See below a patch against svn. Can we please discuss its advantages
>> and drawbacks?
>> - what good does it do: obviously in my case, restore backward
>> compatibility.
>
> Why can't you just patch your own copy?
>
From a comedic standpoint I think that's a good answer.
>> - it gives more flexibility to the versioning scheme. Two usefull
>> such schemes were described previously in the discussion, where
>> classes still have increasing integer versions, but are not possible
>> with 8 bits storage.
>>
>> - what downsides does appying this patch have? Maybe occuring a
>> slight overhead on 16-bits platforms? If true, can this be actually
>> measured?
>> - Would this patch cause any regression? Break any user code which was
>> working fine before? Break user archive backward compatibilty?
>>
>
> Would this not break compatibility with binary_?archive ?
> Currently binary archive stores the version as a 16 bit
> integer. Maybe it wouldn't but it's another thing that would
> have to be considered. Even if it didn't, this would break
> the "guarentee" that any serialization which works for one
> archive class is guarenteed to work with any other one.
I've wondered if Robert deliberately misspells guarantee
in order to emphasize that there is no guarantee.
--
Brian Wood
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://www.webEbenezer.net
(651) 251-9384