From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-26 00:34:03
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 05:14:23 -0500
From: "Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]>
>> 5.2 "registration" - A brief recap:
> You did not comment on my Issue 1 and proposition to completely separate
>registration into template parameter. This way you won't need any macro. The
>user will choose what kind of registration system he prefer at the laterstage.
The description in "Major[Issue 1:]" really wasn't complete enough for me
to understand. If Registration policy is a Trait which template is it
applied to? If its serialation<T, RegistrationTraitClass> ? that would be
quite awkward to me.
But honestly, I really didn't think about it too much as I feel the whole thing had
gotten blown way out of proportion. This issue only occurs when serialization
polymorphic classes through pointers. For me the "forward_declaration"
appoach works just fine and is totally hassle free. If the "forward declaration" doesn't
suit one's taste he can use his own string. I just used a macro so the class name
could be the default string.
Some more elaborate registration system might be interesting and/or
useful, and presumably some unique id could be passed to the
serialization package, but beyond that it doesn't have to be used
by the serialization system in any way.
Nothing more is needed by the system so I don't see any benefit in adding
in any more machinery of any kind.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk