From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-22 00:45:29
"Marcin Kalicinski" <kalita_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>>> However, Serialization does not handle arbitrary (simple) XML, AFAIK.
>> 1. Why do you care?
>> What difference does it make what is the format of the permanent storage
>> you are uging for your configuration. You are not going to edit this
>> manualy anyway.
> Why not? Hand-editing of configuration files is a common Unix tradition to
> paraphrase one of the previous posters.
There should be a compelling reason for you to delve into you automatically
generated XML file. Not a common problem I am sure.
> Plus XML, I believe, is meant to be very much hand-editable.
It's matter of opinion how XML is meant to be edited. Why do you think there
so many XML editors?
> Otherwise what would be its advantage over any binary format?
Almost none. I would use binary format. But XML has nice advantage that I
could use any number of existing tools to display/process it.
>> 2. If you insist you could always implement your own format SimpleXML
>> instead of reinventing the wheel.
> I think implementing your own format looks very much like reinventing the
I don't plan to introduce any new formats. I just propose not to reinvent
infrastructure for permanent storage support.
> You could also rewrite all the world's software in asm, or implement your
> own version of C++, but why would you do that if property_tree can do what
> you need in several lines of code?
property_tree could "rewrite all the world's software in asm, or implement
your own version of C++" in several line of code ;))?
Sorry I am missing your point here.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk