Boost logo

Boost :

From: Matthias Troyer (troyer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-17 18:22:50

We use both XML and binary XDR formats for serialization in our
applications: XML for short files and for meta-information, files in
XDR and/or HDF5 for large data sets. While I can imagine a
serialization of a class into XML as part of a serialization library
like the one proposed, I cannot easily imagine deserialization in the
framework of the current library. It would need a full XML parser,
which does not yet exist in boost.


On Sunday, November 17, 2002, at 11:55 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:

> 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
> 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.
> FWIW, my experience directly contradicts all of your points. It is
> possible
> that I misunderstood them, of course, as you haven't provided details.
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at