|
Boost : |
From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-18 12:43:26
Bohdan wrote:
> I believe that XML can contain any data. But i suspect that
> XML garbaged with all serialization stuff will be
> 1. unreadeable
> 2. difficult to handle automatically (by other programs).
>
> So i was thinking about simplifying Object <-> XML serialization.
> Recently there were talks about ditto & relational algebra libraries.
> Also there was message about stl container on disk.
> As i understand at least some of these libs require special kind
> of serialization: Object <-> Relational tuple (object-relational mapping).
> Having such mapping it would be easy to put Relational data to XML.
> And in this case XML will be very readable.
Wouldn't there be a problem with converting object with variable size?
How can you store vector<int> in a relational database? I don't see an easy way.
> I know this approach has some limitations and doesn't fit very well
> to serialization library design, but IMHO Object <-> relational tuple
> conversion would be very useful :
> 1. store/retrieve object to/from relational tables (in-memory & disk
> databases).
Do you think that automatic mapping is possible in case of relational database?
Of course, you might have Berkeley DB or something like that, which is
on disk map<string, string>. But in this case, Robert's serialization
library would work just fine. And BTW, I'd like to have such thing.
> 2. now collection of object can be represented in GUI. Ex: vector< MyObject
>
> can be viewed and edited by user in some kind of grid.
> 3. putting/getting relational data to/from XML is much simpler than
> object <-> XML serialization.
Consider this code:
class C {
public:
int i, j;
struct imp;
imp* pimp;
vector<int> data;
};
vector<C> c;
How will you convert "c" into a set of tables? And will that set of tables be
easy to work with?
- Volodya
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk