[boost] Re: [Serialization] Formal Review

From: Matthew Vogt (mvogt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-19 18:53:52

Robert Ramey <ramey <at> rrsd.com> writes:

> > That said, the library seems not to limit anything an archive implementor
> > may want to do. My only remaining concern is regarding controlling access 
> > to indiviual overloads of 'save' or 'load'.  This seems to break down, due
> 
> > to the fact that all accesses are from the 'access' class.
> 
> I would be curious to see a specific example of this.

I have a case where I want to do this with the marshalling archives, but they
are a bit heavy for discussion, so I'll try to come back to this with a simpler
demonstration case.

(For David: the following is repeating the earlier post,attributed by 
initials - that was my fault for not quoting Jeff properly)

JG: 4) Finally, I would like reviewers to indicate parts of the library that
    might become standalone boost libraries.  While this will have little
    bearing on the acceptance / rejection of the library it might allow a
    reduction in the size of the library.
 
MV: Some sections of code are definitely candidates for extraction from the
    serialization library, largely identified by Robert in the 'Miscellaneous' 
    section of the documentation.
 
    The strong typedef and state_saver utilities could be extracted, perhaps to
    the utility library.
    Perhaps the extended type info infrastructure is useful outside the
    library.

    The dataflow iterators are very interesting, but I'm not sure how they
    interact with the iterator adaptors library, or with sandbox views
    library.

RR: I would love to see separate discussion of this (on a separate thread
    please).  This area overlaps with iteratator adaptors and views an maybe
    collection traits and who know what else. This is something I've always
    wanted and now I (almost) have it.  My current implementation (not yet
    uploaded) is much improved but has the same interface and intention. 

MV: The unicode conversion code is certainly useful, but I imagine it might be
    better to leave it as an implementation detail of serialization, until
    someone volunteers to investigate a complete solution for this issue. 

RR: I would love to see someone take this out.  Ron Garcia wrote this and it
    worked to my satisfaction.  I had problems making a good test and with
    portability to other compilers/libraries.  Maybe Ron or someone else wants
    to move this to somewhere else.