Re: [boost] [serialization] Notes from a new boost user

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-01 10:35:34

Thanks for your feed back.

3) is_saving and is_loading are already in the library.  I'm sure they're
documented in the 1.33 version and I thought they are documented in the 1.32
version but I'll double check.

Robert Ramey

Michael Behrns-Miller wrote:
>> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost