From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-17 17:55:20
From: "Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]>
> From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> >FWIW, in my experience, XML is a better test for whether a serialization
> >library handles custom formats well. Sequence-based, header-only formats
> >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
> 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
> independent way. Serialization has the central task of saving/restore the
> totality of the state of C++ data structures. These tasks are not
> 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.
FWIW, my experience directly contradicts all of your points. It is possible
that I misunderstood them, of course, as you haven't provided details.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk