From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-13 04:28:27
Robert Ramey wrote:
>>From: Alberto Barbati <abarbati_at_[hidden]>
>>1) I don't like the non-intrusive way of specifying the
> a non-intrusive method is required to implement serialization for classes that
> you don't want to change. For example, the library includes serialization
> for all STL containers with without changing STL itself. This would
> permit easy and optional addition of serialization to any class that
> might benefit from it
Alberto, if I understand him right, was objecting to use of "serialization"
class for implementing non-intrusive serialization, and was proposing
free functions for the same purpose. The fact that non-instrusive
serialization is needed in general is not disputed.
>>2) A most needed addition to the design is to provide a sort of
> "registry" object.....
> This has been a hot topic. It is really not possible to achieve the
> desired results. I will add a section to th rationale explaining this
> in detail,
Why wont't the scheme I describe in my recent email
(with topic "Serialization Submission version 6") work?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk