From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-14 08:59:34
>Dirk Gerrits wrote:
>IIRC the old persistance library defined facilities for input and output
>using the RFC-1014 XDR: External Data Representation Standard. The new
>serialization library doesn't seem to include such archive classes and
>leaves it up to the user to write these.
>Now I don't mean to dispute the decision, but I'd just like to know what
>the rationale for it was.
Well, I've been busy.
Seriously, I personally had no interest in implementing XDR.
a) It didn't add any more portability than using a text file.
b) using a text stream permited standard library code to address the
mapping between machines - for free and guaranteed correct
c) In my opinion wouldn't be any faster
Of course all sorts of objects were raised to these views. Worse,
everyone wanted their own pet archive format. So I did the natural
thing - I punted. The data storage is completelty factored out. I'm
waiting for any one of those who told me how easy it is to make a portable
XDR archiver to submit a derivation of basic_[i|o]archive. This factoring
out actually is a great thing. The data storage itself doesn't even have
to be a stream like object. It could be something more interesting
like an pipe to another machine or what ever.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk