From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-17 11:59:38
From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
> At 04:08 AM 11/17/2002, Matthias Troyer wrote:
> >On Sunday, November 17, 2002, at 05:43 AM, David Abrahams wrote:
> >> Does anybody else feel they need more time to give this library a
> >> thorough going-over? I think we could afford to extend the review for
> >> a few more days. I would especially be willing to do so if it would
> >> allow for enough discussion for someone like Jeff to make a definitive
> >> vote, since he has experience in the domain.
> >Yes, it would also help me to try get the code working under gcc v. 3
> >and to really test the library, as well as to try provide some extra
> >binary formats (e.g. XDR or PVM formats) in order to see if it works
> >Could we extend it by one week so that we have another weekend?
> I'm really interested in the XDR format, not because I care about the
> format itself, but because others seem to use it as some sort of litmus
> test for serialization libraries. Thus knowing that Robert's library
> handles XDR well is of interest.
FWIW, in my experience, XML is a better test for whether a serialization
library handles custom formats well. Sequence-based, header-only formats are
very similar, but a reasonable XML serializer creates a tree-like
representation, with nested tags.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk