Re: [boost] [Boost Review] Do really property_tree andprogram_optionsoverlap?

From: Ivan Vecerina (ivec_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-21 04:54:17

"Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:e28s8g$29i$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
: I admit I must've misinterpret the problem domain you are trying to 
cover.
: So now you are saying that your library should be used to implement
: permanent data storage? But we already  have a solution for that either.
: Much better IMO in any sense (safety, convenience, automation etc). All 
in
: all in between PO an Serialization library I do not see any place for 
this
: submission.

Hi Gennadiy,

There is a profusion of applications that use xml, JSON, or a similar
format for data storage.  In all these applications, being able to
dynamically manipulate an in-memory representation of the data
structure is a very common need.
boost::serialize goes straight from C++ object to stream, and there
is no opportunity to manipulate the stored data in-memory (let me
be corrected if I am wrong).

: It's doesn't stand a comparison as runtime parameters support
: facility even with PO library ( no conflict resolution, no formats
: specification, no automatic/custom validation no async action assignment
: etc). And it's doesn't stand a comparison as a permanent storage 
facility
: with Serialization library (in most senses). Make no mistake these are 
two
: different domains.

xml, JSON, the Windows registry, some uses of command-line parameters, etc
have a lot of common.  And ptree seeks to provide a common in-memory
representation for all these formats.  I see a real value it in.

But I have a question for you, or for any advanced user/developer
of boost serialize:

How would you look at ptree being a possible target format (Archive)
for boost::serialize ?

-- 
http://ivan.vecerina.com/contact/?subject=NG_POST <- email contact form