From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-07 02:29:41
"JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z" wrote:
> Ok now I understand, and basically share, your concerns
> about the lack of documentation on what goes into the serialization
> stream. Of course I can document my part in the case of B.MI,
> but for this to constitute a real cross-platform, cross-
> implementation spec one would additionally need that:
> 1. Other serializable types (serialization primitive and otherwise)
> do the same and document their way of stuffing themselves
> down the wire.
> 2. Boost.Serialization exposes its internal mechanism for
> serialization --I'm thinking here of things like versioning
> and pointer tracking-- at least to the extent that they
> reflect on what gets actually saved to the stream.
> This initiative is interesting (and would be almost mandatory
> if B.S was ever proposed to the standard) but its scope is
> community-wide and beyond the realm of an isolated class'
> definition IMHO. What does Robert think about this?
My stated goal was to permit the serialization an de-serialization
of any group of C++ data structures in the most expendient
way. I wanted the system to be simple to use, complete
To this end, I made a determined effort to separate
the external aspects in the "archives" and description
of the class attributes related to serialization in "serialization"
I refrained from and a-priori definition and description of
the external format for a couple of reasons:
a) it was too hard - I would require a huge amount of work
b) I believed - and still believe - that it conflicted with
my stated goals above.
c) I didn't think that the investment of time would be
worth it in brining the package "to market"
After some experience in seeing how the package is
being used and how hard/easy it is to use, I don't
regret my decisions.
If one want's to add an externallly defined language
independent format to the above goals, I think one
will be doomed to failure. Of course I could be
wrong and anyone is free to take a crack at it. Lots
of people have. I'm not sure how all the other
systems out there compare to boost serialization
So I don't see an externally documented format
for this boost serialization. Hence I don't see anything
like boost serialization ever appearing in the standard.
Perhaps some system which might functionally similar
but I think it would have to be grown from scratch
with a different set of goals and priorities.
Which is the reason that I think the whole concept
of library standards have been over-applied and
even detremental to the future success of C++.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk