Boost logo

Boost :

From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-04 15:02:35

> Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>> If X is usable without serialization, users shouldn't be forced to also
>>> link to the serialization library, just because of this dependency.
>>> (In the particular case I have in mind this dependency was controlled
>>> by a preprocessor macro. That's not very practical, since packagers
>>> surely won't provide two sets of packages for X, one with and one
>>> without
>>> this dependency.)
>>> Thus, I'd suggest to encapsulate the X-serialization functionality into
>>> a separate library (may be header-only), such as X_serialization.hpp
>>> etc. Then I can still use X stand-alone, and drag in the rest whenever
>>> I need it.
>> This has been discussed before. You don't need X_serialization.hpp, if
>> you
>> don't use BOOST_CLASS_EXPORT. See
> I'm not sure how relevant that is. If X.hpp contains serialization-related
> code, it surely needs to include serialization header files, too, to drag
> in any relevant declarations. Thus there is a dependency from X to
> serialization.

You need no declarations because the serialization is implemented as a
function template:

class foo;

template<class Archive>
void serialize(Archive & ar, foo & x, const unsigned int version)
    ar &;

The above code compiles without including any boost serialization headers.

I have not used boost serialization (I have my own serialization library),
but as far as I can see the reason why foo.hpp that uses boost serailization
needs to include serialization headers, is to be able to use
BOOST_CLASS_EXPORT. For me this is good enough reason not to use

Emil Dotchevski

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