From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-13 17:49:38
JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z wrote:
> I think there's some weak points in my proposal
> having to do with the relationship between
> "archive association" and "restored copy" --for instance,
> a dummy archive wih accepts iar>>t for every t and
> simply does nothing would be, according to the
> definitions, associated with any output archive, and
> this is clearly not what we want. I've got this
> thing going round my head, allow me to come back to you
> in a few days.
There are a couple of things that I would think should be permitted by the
definition which might not be apparent.
An archive which would be used for logging. I toyed with this but it turned
out not to be trivial as I had anticipated. Basically I enviaged an archive
that would would not do any tracking regardless of any serialization traits.
This would be usable for things like transaction commit/rollback. Its still
speculative but I don't see that the Archive Concept as envisioned prohibits
it. Also for debug logging perhaps. Finally an application for write only
Since Archive is dependent upon Serializable, I'm wondering if the sequence
of these two sections in the documentation shouldn't be switched. Hmmmm.
Anyway, thanks for looking into this. Take your time. I'm still thinking
about two-phase lookup
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk