Boost logo

Boost :

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-08 17:01:17

"Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> At 12:48 PM 11/8/2004, Robert Ramey wrote:
> >Note that making one's code "serialization friendly" does not require
> >inclusion of a header from the serialization library.
> >
> >In most cases it should be sufficient to include
> >namespace boost { namespace serialization { class access; } }
> >and
> >
> >friend class boost::serialization::access;
> >
> >in each class definition.
> >
> >I don't think that's a huge burden.
> No, that doesn't seem like a huge burden.
> Let me see if I understand the issues correctly:
> * As it stands now, boost::filesystem::path can be serialized by
> derivation, as Francis Andre suggested. Easy to do, but a bit messy to my
> taste.

Personally I have no problem with this solution. It never occurred to me
that I could
get around the "private" in this way. I'm not convinced that all compilers
would support it.
The beauty of this is that it wouldn't require that other library authors be
convinced to
change their code.

> * But by adding the two lines of code above, boost::filesystem::path
> becomes serialization friendly without further ado. And granting
> does not create a dependency on the serialization library, so the cost is
> strictly limited.
> Unless someone indicates I'm misunderstanding something, I'll go ahead and
> add the two lines of code, but I think it is too late for 1.32.0.

I think 1.32.0 should be released without any further changes or delay of
any sort.

Rather than adding any code anywhere - I would prefer to see this considered
at a
more leisurely pace. I would like to see some consensus reached after a
of people have looked at the various alternatives.

> --Beman
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at