[boost] Re: Re: [boost::serialization] - serialization + shared_ptrs

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-08 11:41:43

Peter Dimov wrote:
> Robert Ramey wrote:
>> a) The author of boost shared pointer doesn't want to include
>> serialization implementation in his implementation of
>> boost::shared_ptr
>
> The author of boost::shared_ptr wants to, but it isn't
> straightforward and will take time; and you aren't helping me much, I
> might add.
>

Hmmm I understood that you didn't want to include serialization inside the
implementation of shared_ptr but had insisted on and totally non-intrusive
one which depended only on public interface of shared_ptr.  That's what I
was refering to.  And I'm not unsympathetic to this point of view.  In fact
its exactly the reason  I want to avoid including code to implement one
specific type (shared_ptr) inside the serialization implementation.
Shifting the problem from one library to a different libray may be a
solution for one developer - but its not a solution for boost as a whole.

So far the only concrete constructive suggestion I've seen is the one I just
posted.

>> The latest updates to shared_pointer checked into CVS about 10 days
>> ago break current serialzation of shared pointer.  In no way will I
>> have time to fix this before 15 April.
>
> You can see now why I don't consider "access to the implementation" a
> viable approach.

I never failed to see your point - I just never really saw an attractive
resolution.  Lacking such a resolution - I've "made it work" which is more
than anyone else has done.

> It is not reasonable to cease any further work on boost::shared_ptr
> because the serialization library depends on a specific
> implementation.

Maybe, but it will leave some developers in the lurch and the issue has been
out there for over a year.

> Your other suggestion was "add a serialize member to shared_ptr and just
> make it work." This is easier said than done. The serialization
> library is fairly complex and figuring out the best way to extend it
> non-intrusively with the necessary support requires more time than I
> have at the moment.

Welcome to the club.

Robert Ramey