From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-25 13:07:38
Jeff Garland wrote:
> > a) no extra compile time overhead
> > b) no extra run-time overhead
> > c) no extra file inclusion
> > d) no extra "conceptual" overhead. That is one would never have to even
> > think about it - it would always be there just lurking waiting to be
> > of service. It would just work when used.
> Are you saying there is actually extra runtime overhead with the way I've
> implemented serialization? If so, that needs to be in the docs b/c I was
> under the impression that external versus internal implementations would
> the same...
I didn't mean to imply your method had any runtime overhead - I was just
restating all the features. However, the other points are real advantages of
just putting it in with the class definition. BTW the non - intrusive
version could also be put in the normal class header. However if its too
complicated it might end up requiring more file inclusion so it would have
to be considered on a case by case basis.
I personally don't have a strong position on this. As far as serialization
is concerned the alternatives are all equivalent. The decision where to but
the serialization templates can be decided on other factors.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk