RE: [boost] Serialization Review Results

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
jump in...

> 2. Careful description of scope. Answer questions like: 

>      * Is it important to be able to plug in arbitrary archive
>        formats?
>      * 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
>        serve? 

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.

-Greg Hickman