From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-17 12:51:16
From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
>> 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.
After a cursory investigation as to what it would take to make an XML
archive, I've concluded that:
a) I don't thing XML is rich enough to capture all possible C++ data structures
b) This would imply the creation of a system of reflection for C++
i) I not convinced this is a good idea
ii) should be dealt with as an indepent project in any case
c) XML has a central task to represent data in a platform/programming language
independent way. Serialization has the central task of saving/restore the
totality of the state of C++ data structures. These tasks are not identical
and any course of action based on the presumption that they are is
doomed to be frustrating an most likely a failure in my opinion.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk