Re: [boost] Re: Re: Re: [fileststem]1.32: withserilization:visibility ofm_path

From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-09 16:01:17

"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote

> An "std::" library (tuple, shared_ptr, filesystem?) needs to specify its
> external representation as part of the interface. This is mandated by the
> fact that users will - very likely - serialize its classes under
> implementation A and deserialize them under implementation B. This must
> work.
[snip]
> What this all boils down to:
>
> - for an "std::" library, it probably should be possible to write a
> non-intrusive serializer;

I understand the point you're making, but I'm not sure I
agree...yet.

To dictate the serialization layout might coerce a particular
implementation.

In the case of boost::filesystem, there is a convenient string
format that can be used as the serialized form that can be
reparsed into any implementation.  Does that hold for any
serializable std:: library component?

With std::complex, you can choose to serialize as either polar or
cartesian coordinates and either implementation can interpret the
other.

The public interface of std::map exposes all of the key/value
pairs in the map, so writing the key/value pairs when serializing
is enough to recreate a map.

Thus far, your statement holds, but I haven't thought about every
serializable object in std::, so there may yet be problems.

-- 
Rob Stewart                           stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer                     http://www.sig.com
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  using std::disclaimer;