Boost logo

Boost :

From: Michael Behrns-Miller (m_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-01 10:08:05


> I've become very skeptical of my ability to predict how other programmers
> are going to address things. I'm willing to wait and see.
>
> So I'm anxious to see where this goes. If in fact we do get a wave of
> users with problems, I'll be forced to modify my point of view in the
> face of the facts. If (almost) no one complains (perhaps unlikely) then
> there will be no issue. If there are a fair number of complaints - but
> it turns out that a significant portion are due to real mistakes - we
> might be in for another debate. But given more data, I would expect it
> to be of a different character. If it turns out (almost) none of the
> cases are real problems, then I'll have to accept as a fact that its a
> bad idea.

As a new boost user I thought I would humbly submit some feedback.
Forgive me if I missed nuances of the existing debates.

1) I love the serialization library, I'm sure many of us have done similar
code before, and it's great to see work towards a standardized solution.
Really useful, thanks Robert!

2) The new "const required to save" restriction bit me, took a day or two
to work through the mailing list and #boost to figure out the problem. Is
there a way to make the end-of-the-chain error message
(`boost::STATIC_ASSERTION_FAILURE<false>' does not
have member `value') more clear? I would rate the severity of the
difficulty a 2 or 3 out of 10, from a new user's perspective. It seemed
intuitive enough once I understood the requirement. Putting the
serialization save calls within a const save(archive) function of the
object being serialized made it a non-issue for me. I haven't used it
enough to say I won't run into the const issue again, but at least I know
about it now.

3) I realize I can split serialize() into separate load/save functions.
However, I appreciate the recommendation to use one serialize() function,
where the load/save order is easier to maintain. However again, I
absolutely need (I think :>) to know, within that function, if I am
loading or saving. It's the only way I can efficiently handle versioning
or handle dynamic allocations, and still use one serialize() function, as
far as I can tell. Bottom line: I now have
isSaving(archive)/isLoading(archive) functions, can these be added to the
library? Or am I approaching this wrong?

As I've said, I'm brand new at this. I'm providing this feedback for two
reasons: to give you an idea of what I ran into as a new user, and to get
suggestions on anything I'm approaching in the wrong way.

Thanks again boost.


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk