Boost logo

Boost :

From: Jorge Lodos (lodos_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-21 18:22:00

> >>
> > It requires a lot of work.
> How come?
> > The serialization library does not provide a model for in-memory
> > property storage,
> It's not supposed to.
> std::vector, std::map, multi_index, tree - take your pick
> > nor does it provide a windows registry archive (the last
> time I saw).
> Ok - Implement one. No need to reinvent the whole infrastructure.
> > Applying serialization to appropriate fields implies I already have
> > those fields somehow organized.
> Why? Or rather what do you mean by that.
> > The way I see it, PT is the serialization library plus in-memory
> > property storage.
> The way I see it we already have better solution for either task.
> > Perhaps it could have used serialization internally and
> serialization
> > archives for loading and saving.
> Better stop reinventing the wheel and just write an add-ons
> to excising solution.
> > As I said before, the real
> > difference could be the loading and saving of some of the
> properties
> > in the memory storage, without having to load/save them all.
> I still do not see any difficulties implementing this without PT.

If I understand correctly, your point is that implementing a library that:
1. Reads and saves hierarchical configurations from/to several different
storages (including windows registry and XML)
2. Maintains an accessible memory storage for configuration data
3. Is able to load/save individual configuration parameters without having
to load/save all of them
is not a lot of work, using serialization and existing containers.

Since "lot" is a subjective term, my point is that using a separate library
that puts it all together with an easy and extensible (for storages)
interface is a lot easier than develop my own solution. The possible use of
serialization or container classes in this library are implementation
details to me.
Moreover, since read/writing configurations is a very common task, for many
people learning how to use serialization just to assess feasibility is not
possible, and there is no single library that does what I enumerated before,
IMHO such a library has a place in boost. Another question is if that
library is PT :-)


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at