From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-16 20:28:26
> So to me it seems natural
> to included in the header along with the whole
> class declaration.
Consider a library that provides foo.h, which defines class foo, and a
program that #includes "foo.h" because it needs to use class foo, but it
doesn't need to serialize it. To me, it isn't natural for such a program to
require boost serialization headers.
I suppose you could separate serialize/load/save overloads in a different
header file, but because typically they need to be friends, foo.h would have
to declare them in order to make them friends, which is a hassle. Instead,
you could simply define serialize/load/save directly in foo.h without
including any serialization stuff -- except that a program that does
serialize foo objects would have to register class foo "manually".
> That way when that header gets
> used by other programs, they all share the same
> external name - as they should since they're sharing
> the same header.
If I want to make a particular class to have the same external name across
multiple programs, this is easy to achieve by sharing the code that
registers that class with boost serialization. I just don't think that the
class' header file is the best place for this registration.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk