From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-17 14:19:54
How about this for a solution:
I can just remove my shared_ptr serialization implementation from the
serializaition package and you can make yours part of the share_ptr header
files. That would be fine from my point of view.
"Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > Robert Ramey wrote:
> > > Alternatively, you might want to consider expanding the shared_ptr
> > > interface with enough information to permit serialization to be
> > > implemented via the public interface.
> > How, exactly? The current public interface is good enough for my
> > serialization/deserialization needs, but I'm willing to consider your
> > suggestions.
I have no idea - shared_ptr implementation code is opaque to me.
> Do you remember out discussion on the subject.
> I still believe We dont need any modification in shared_ptr to make it
> serializable (even more I believe it's evil od request one). I don't
> remember ever your answer on my last post.
Hmm - I believe I concluded that the proposed solutions where inefficient
compared to my implementation and required essentially replicating
functionality already in the library. Honestly I don't remember now.
Essentially I saw my implemenation as very straight forward in that is was
identical to the way one does it for other user types. It was identical the
way its done for collections and this has worked out very well.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk