Boost logo

Boost :

From: Felipe Magno de Almeida (felipe.m.almeida_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-26 22:26:23

On 4/26/05, Edward Diener <eddielee_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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
> >>>| important.
> >>>
> >>>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
> >>that also.
> >
> >
> > 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.

I agree with you that the boost serialization library would be a very
good addition to the Standard. I find myself using it all the time...
I haven't seen any serialization library with half the qualities of
the boost serialization library.

> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:

   Felipe Magno de Almeida
   UIN: 2113442
    email: felipe.almeida at ic unicamp br, felipe.m.almeida at gmail
com, felipe at synergy com
I am a C, modern C++, MFC, ODBC, Windows Services, MAPI developer
from synergy, and Computer Science student from State
University of Campinas(UNICAMP).
To know more about:
current work:
"There is no dark side of the moon really. Matter of fact it's all dark."

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