Re: [boost] [serialization] Proposal for an extension API to the Archive concept

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-09-27 11:17:53

Joaquín Mª López Muñoz wrote:

>> This sounds to me exactly the 1.34 version.  Its just that the
>> "hook" is undocumented as I considered it a hack required
>> to overcome the problems associated with just one type -
>> shared_ptr.
>
> There are important differences with respect to Boost 1.34. Hooking
> is done at run-time, whereas the Boost 1.34 solution was compile-time.
> Extension is created lazily, which means you don't pay for it if
> you're
> not using it. The extension class can grow in the future without
> Archive classes needing to be redefined or recompiled.

That's the way it is in 1.34

> Well, I think our respective positions are clear,

Not to me.

> and I don't want to
> beat this to death, but please answer the following: under your
> proposed
> scheme, does the type shared_ptr conform to the concept Serializable?
> Note that the only reasonably acceptable answers are "yes" and "no" :)

As I've said, I don't see ANY functional difference between what
you propose and what's already implemented in 1.34.  If I remember
correctly, you're concerns were raised upon seeing the changes in
the trunk - (aka 1.35).  I'm proposing to go back to 1.34 (with
a slight change in implementation - no change in interface).  I can't
see how that is not exactly what you wanted.

Robert Ramey