From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-26 20:31:57
David Abrahams wrote:
> Edward Diener <eddielee_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>>>"Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>>>| On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 23:32:22 +0200, Thorsten Ottosen wrote
>>>| What about serialization -- it's a big library, but really
>>>people are working on a proposal about reflection for C++0x which
>>>would give automatic serialization; so we'd better wait with this.
>>Having a reflection facility in C++ does not obviate the need for a
>>serialization library. Furthermore since the reflection work is closed
>>to those outside of the committee, AFAICS
> What can you see that indicates the work is closed to those outside
> the committee?
1) I asked Gabriel Dos Reis to participate in the work on reflection and
was told that my input was not needed, but if they needed someone to
test things out, I could volunteer. In effect I was told to get lost,
evidently because I was not a member of the committee or was not
considered smart enough or important enough to contribute.
2) Where is the information regarding reflection and the work being done
on it published ? If it is not closed to those outside the committee,
then the ongoing work on it should be accessible to others, and others
should be able to comment on it and contribute to it.
>>I will be sorely disappointed if C++ does not have serialization in
>>the next C++ standard, but perhaps the C++ committee is working on
> You can pretty much tell what the committee is working on by looking
> at the contents of the publicly available mailings. There haven't
> been any serialization papers in any mailings I've seen. If you want
> to avoid disappointment, I suggest you write and submit a proposal.
I was promoting the idea that the Boost Serialization library be
submitted. If the Boost serialization library is not submitted, and the
C++ committee is not intending to have a serialization library, I think
it will be a big mistake but I have no serialization library of my own
to submit as I think the Boost one is better than anything I could do
and better than anything else I have ever seen using standard C++. I
will be glad to work with Mr. Ramey on the writing up a proposal part,
since I am a fairly good writer, but it is obviously up to him and not
me whether he wants to propose the library to the committee.
In favor of serialization I will say that all RAD programming
environments I have ever seen must do some form of serialization in
order to store and load property and event values. Outside of that,
serializing data so that it can be transported across heterogenous
environments is a fundamental concept of distributed object programming.
It would be a great advantage for C++ to have a mechanism of its own for
doing this rather than having to adjust itself to fit into other
environments, each with their own pecularities and limitations.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk