Re: [boost] extensions/plugins library, conclusion

From: Janek Kozicki (janek_listy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-09 14:44:14

Robert Ramey said:     (by the date of Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:31:38 -0700)

> Janek Kozicki wrote:
> 
> > Think of it. With two separate libraries (one for serialization
> > and one for plugins) the user will have to register each class twice.
> > Serialization already registers classes with GUID (Global Unique
> > IDentifier) so plugins/extensions library should take advantage of
> > that.
> 
> Oh no.  registering a data type for export would be sufficient
> for plug-ins AND serialization.

Yes you are right. Slight misunderstanding here. I was talking about
"two separate, totally different" libraries. Like we already have
boost::serialization and a new library from Jeremy that doesn't know or
use the mechanisms from serialization but instead reinvents the whell.
And I meant that this would be bad.

> So I would like to see:
> 
> a) a plug-in library based on ehancement of extended_type_info
> b) serialization tweaked to use this library.
> 
> Then we get a "smaller" serialization library - and a separate
> self contained library which is useful for other things.  Just
> a little code re-factoring.

yes, I agree 100%

So if we start working on this, we simply continue the work started by
introducing extended_type_info

But since it's Jeremy who started this thread I await his (your ;)
acknowledgement of this conclusion. I'll try to help in doing that
(as usual - given enough time...)

-- 
Janek Kozicki                                                         |