From: Augustus Saunders (infinite_8_monkey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-11 18:48:10
Ok, at Dave's request I'm reposting here, and I'll continue to post
both places until we see if the other list gains any momentum.
>2. Careful description of scope. Answer questions like:
> * Is this a persistence or serialization library?
Or more to the point, what kind of library do we want to make?
I would like to see both eventually. I think people were
expecting serialization, and it is IMO the more accessible of
> * Is it important to be able to plug in arbitrary archive
I don't think it would be useful (if possible) to support *arbitrary*
formats. The target should be a wide swath of common format
If somebody needs a format that doesn't fit well within one of our
format categories, then this library just plain won't be of much
> * Is it important to be able to use the same UDT serialization
> code to write several different archive formats?
I appologize; I'm not up on my acronyms. UDT?
> * What kinds of applications are we intending to serve?
I think the primary uses for serialization will be save files, inter-
application data transfer, and network transfers. I think part of
point of a serialization library is to make it easier for an
with lots of classes to serialize to multiple formats. Code
should be of utmost concern. Adding, removing, and changing formats
applied over thousands of classes should be facilitated to whatever
> * What kinds of applications are we explicitly NOT intending to
A couple of people have mentioned that we're not trying to make a
database. I concur, but when we do tackle a persistence library, it
must be able to serve as a front end to an OODB. In other words,
we don't want to try and write a database, it should be possible for
database writer to use a boost::persistence library as a replacement
for some of the custom preprocessor tools they use now to map
<==> runtime objects. At any rate, that is not the library I think
should tackle first.
>5. Well, Item 3 drifted a bit into technical issues, so here's a
> more-comprehensive list of technical issues I'd like to see
> considered carefully and collaboratively.
Unfortunately, I haven't had the time to dig into the technical
details. I'll continue to watch the discussion and comment when I
that I understand the issues.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk