Re: [boost] [serialization] Enhancing Archives with Archve Adaptors

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-27 13:24:45

"Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Here is the key point.  I'm not really concerned about specifically
> about save_array.
>
> The save_array optimization is one example of any number
> of enhancements and/or extentions that people might want to
> make.  But it is not the only example.  We can't go mixing
> every great idea into the core library without running into
> an intractible scalabilty problem.

To me at least, it is very clear that you hold that view, and it has
been clear for a long time.  That's why I'd like to have a different
discussion with you, mentioned in several foregoing messages:

  If Robert insists [on a non-intrusive design], he is also buying
  into a situation where this function in the add-on library has to be
  used by every serialization function that _might_ be used in a
  performance-critical context, and every archive choice made in what
  _might_ be a performance-critical context must come from the add-on
  library, if an appropriate archive exists there (I am thinking e.g.,
  of binary archives that would be present in the add-on library while
  text-based archives probably would not).  That's what I want him to
  think about.

  If he understands what that means and prefers to avoid intrusion on
  the library design anyway, Matthias and I are willing to accept that
  and never bring it up again.  After three years of hammering on this
  one point I can't blame Robert for being tired, and I have no reason
  to believe new arguments are likely to change his mind about it.

This really should be a very short discussion, after which you'll have
me and Matthias completely out of your hair on this topic.  There
should be no need for long and time-consuming posts like the one I'm
replying to here.  Can't we do that?  Afterward we could all relax and
enjoy the holidays. :)

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com