Re: [boost] [serialization] exception-safety of container-serialization

From: bwood (brass_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-18 13:49:36

This is a MIME encoded message.

--=_ed2efef938273c1349ad08d7ebe9b3d9
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Joaquín M López Muñoz wrote:
>I would NOT go for the strong guarantee for the following 
two reasons: 

>1. Given the basic guarantee, all-or-nothing semantics can 
>be implemented externally, and as efficiently as you'd do it 
>internally. 
>2. It might be of interest to keep a partially recovered object. 
>For instance, think of the situation in which a container is being 
>marshalled thru a socket and you lose internet conectivity. 

I started to reply to this and then wondered if I understood
what you meant.  Were you talking about the container as the 
"partially recovered object" or an object that will be stored
by the container?  The subsequent discussion I guess points to 
the latter.  I think the first case is interesting.  If a program 
sends 100 objects and another receives 99 of them no problem, 
it would probably be helpful to get that information back to 
the sender so the whole thing isn't repeated.  Does Boost::
serialization support this?   

Brian

--=_ed2efef938273c1349ad08d7ebe9b3d9--