From: Hickman, Greg (greg.hickman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-10 14:28:55
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Abrahams [mailto:dave_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 3:06 PM
> To: boost
> Subject: [boost] Serialization Review Results
I unfortunately haven't followed the detailed discussion on Robert's library
proposal (although I'm working on catching up), but I'd like to go ahead and
> 2. Careful description of scope. Answer questions like:
> * Is it important to be able to plug in arbitrary archive
> * Is it important to be able to use the same UDT serialization
> code to write several different archive formats?
I have a need to translate "my" format to "theirs" often enough, so I'd say
yes to both of these if they're affordable.
> * What kinds of applications are we explicitly NOT intending to
Gennady Rozental suggested that database backends might not be appropriate,
but it seems like pluggable archive formats make this doable.
> * Is it important to allow all UDTs to be separately versioned?
I'm in favor of being given the option of per-class versioning. We're
currently developing an application which loads user objects dynamically.
Unless there is some solution I'm overlooking, I don't see how a single
version for an entire archive can possibly meet the needs of the application
and its users.
> Given the enormous interest in addressing this problem domain (or
> domains) shown by Boost members, and the many offers of
> participation, it would be a real shame if this review didn't
> ultimately produce a Boost library that we can all stand
> behind. Broader collaboration in the Boost tradition seems
> like the best way to get there.
I agree! I need to read the prior discussion and examine the library, but
I'm willing to help if I can.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk