Re: [boost] Serialization support

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-07 08:35:12

Robert Ramey wrote:

> 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
> these days.
 >
> 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.

I think you're being too pessimistic -- standards that could work have been 
developed multiple times and places. No doubt, though, this is too much for a 
single person and I agree with you that boost.serialization might not have 
ever completed.

Off the top of my head I think the following would be good, well-documented 
options:

  - CDR for truly portable binary data 
http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/02-06-51
  - JSON text format - http://www.json.org/
  - YAML text format - http://www.yaml.org/

So, if someone would spend a couple days writing new archives we'd be in 
business.

BTW, I have seen the lack of a documented format become a reason to not use 
Boost serialization on a project.

> 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++.

This too I believe is wrong.  Every human system of significance rests on 
standards.  You and I couldn't be conversing now if we didn't have a pile of 
IEEE standards, posix standards, W3C standards, and yes, programming 
standards.  For C++, there is a real effect of having something in the 
standard -- companies that refuse to use Boost will insist on the use of ISO 
standard C++.

Jeff