From: Anatoli Tubman (anatoli_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-31 13:41:44
Robert Ramey wrote:
> This method would destroy the independence between class serialization
> specification and archive format. If I were going to do such a thing (which
> I'm not), I would build this logic into a new XML archive class. You're free
> to do this. (if your boss will give you permission)
It absolutely certainly will be a new archive class. Sorry if it wasn't
clear from the start.
I just think such an archive/serialization library is (a) useful enough
to bea part of boost and (b) similar enough to the existing boost
library to share the namespace with it.
I understand fully that this idea works only with tagged formats (not
necessary just XML), that's why I'm saying that it should probably
use a different syntax or maybe a sub-namespace under boost::serialization.
My boss :) would be happy to see such a library as a part of boost.
> Actually this question touches upon a central issue about what serialization
> is all about and how it conflicts with what XML is all about.
[long quote snipped]
I'm staying within program-structure-drives-data-format school of
thought. I don't precisely understand how going in the other direction
is ever useful. Okay, given a DTD, you can generate a program that could
read and write a bunch of data structures; but what will it *do* with
-- Anatoli Tubman PTC Israel (Haifa) Tel. (+972) 4-8550035 ext. 229
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk