From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-11 02:01:15
Robert Ramey wrote:
>>>>3) Additions to documentation to include rationale for not depending
>>>I'm afraid I'm not convinced by either the rationale or your posts.
>>>For that reason plan to argue and vote against the inclusion of your
>>>library in the current state.
> I'm not sure which posts or rationale you are unconvinced by. I can say
> I tried to address all points raised only after careful study and consideration
> and I am convinced that they have been addressed in the best way. My
> reasons for the decisions made have been documented in posts and the
> rationale. In the absence of new facts or observations, I see no reason to
> make any more changes.
I have tried hard to explain that while typeid would make archives
unportable between different machines (not really an issue if there's
denamgler for type_info::name() and I think work is underway on it),
your scheme make archives possibly unsusable between different
applications on the same platform and even inside the same application.
I've argued that requirement to register all polymorphic classes in the
same order places a terrible burned on the user of your library.
You've merely dismissed my concerns.
>>>In addition, there was *no* real discussion on interface. I still
>>>would like to use 'describe', which may work in 95% of cases. I also
>>>have some other minor disagreements. I'm afraid we won't be able to
>>>come to a decision over formal review period.
> There was quite a bit of discussion on the interface - particularly regarding
> the describe functionality. I had nothing against it in priniciple, its just
> that in practice it didn't really add anything.
1. It's much more terse
2. It can be used for other purposes.
3. Finally, you can 'describe' your class without even including
serialization headers, which is handy if somebody want to use your
classes without any serialization.
>>>Given that a lot of time still remains, would you be willings to
>>>actively discuss those issues. I really would like to have
>>>serialization in Boost, only don't feel that the library reached the
>>>level that I'd like.
> I've been answering issues raised since april. There has been 5 months
> and 4 drafts. This is ample opportunity to raise new issues. All issues
> raised durring this time were given much consideration. The library
> has surpassed its original list of objectives by a significant margin. Its
> been months since new issues have been raised.
I'm sorry to say that, but "opportunity to raise new issues" is not the
same as actively discussing anything. If I raise an issue and discussion
just dies, why should I raise new issues?
I get an impression that some messages were either missed or not replyed.
> I see no issues new issues raised here. And certainly no aspect of the original
> list of objectives has been overlooked. Also, I know that a number of people
> have been using the draft libraries with good success.
> So as it stands, I have nothing to add - its time to vote.
It's bad that you say so, but you've a right. You know how I'll vote.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk