From: Dave Harris (brangdon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-20 09:34:37
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 22:17:51 -0800 Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden]) wrote:
> It will be much easier to switch to the new boost framework if
> archives in the old format can still be loaded (without having
> 2 lots of code).
> Eventually when all your old files have been processed, you can
> remove the old MFC serialization code from your classes.
This sounds to me like having 2 lots of code. As long as the old archives
need to be loaded (which is basically forever in my case), the
user-defined classes need code to load them in addition to code to support
boost. My classes would still need to inherit from CObject.
I was hoping the new UDT code could replace the old UDT code. It could
then form part of a migration away from MFC and CObject, towards boost and
greater platform neutrality.
It would involve a boost archive which exactly matched Microsoft's format.
I wouldn't expect boost to provide this out of the box, but it would be
nice if the design didn't preclude it. It implies a certain freedom about
archive preambles, object factory registration, etc.
-- Dave Harris
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk