Re: [boost] [Boost Review] Property Tree Library

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-22 00:45:29

"Marcin Kalicinski" <kalita_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:e2bk84$k1b$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
>>> 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 
> wheel.

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.

Gennadiy