[boost] Re: an xml-binary persistence library

From: Nicola Santi (nicola.santi_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-19 06:11:00

As I wrote in previous posts I do not write in english very well, so I 
could have made some misunderstandings. I try to clarify:

 > I'm afraid I don't like this approach. You have 3 ways to serialize an
 > object:
 > 1. Call operator <<
 > 2. Call put_oject
 > 3. Call serialize on object directly.
 >
 > That's quite confusing.

It is NOT possible to store objects using << operator: this operator 
would store only an unsigned integer with a virtual memory address, not 
an object.

serialize() method is used for objects on the stacks, like in the example:

                       Widget widget;
                        ...
                       widget.serialize(archive);

put_object() is used for objects that need dynamic creation (like ones 
allocated on the heap). See the example:

                      Widget* pWidget = new Widget();
                       ...
                      archive.put_object(pWidget);

While serialize (in the first example) put in the archive only Widget 
object content (fields, an so), the put_object() store also the class 
information to dynamic recreate a pointer during archive reading.

So the two methods respond to two difference persistence needs and I'am 
sure they should still remain in eternity: so, do you suggest to add 
also a single method that use parameter or a single template method that 
call serialize() for reference and put_object() for pointers?

 > OK, short name will help with the space issue. But still, lookup up that
 > short name will take time.

Ok, I think I've understand the point. I'll work on it.

Thank you.
N.