Re: [boost] [serialization] Proposal for an extension API totheArchive concept

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-09-27 19:00:39

> To sum it up, what I propose is to go from situation 1 (your proposal)
> where:
>
>   1. The Archive concept does not guarantee serializability of
> shared_ptrs
>   and types relying on the helper API.
>   2. There are archive implementations which support an extension of
>   the Archive concept by which shared_ptrs and helper API are
> supported.
>
> to situation 2 where:
>
>   1. The Archive concept is sufficient to guarantee that shared_ptrs
> and
>   types relying on the helper API are serializable.
>

> Did I get my point through so far? I'm not trying to convince you now,

Suppose we just reverted to 1.34 and documented the helper interace.
How would you proposal be different than this?  That's what I'm missing.

Of course it would mean an expansion of the Archive Concept for just
one data type.  Another layer of concept for users to (mis)understand and
ask about and whatever. And there will always be data types whose authors 
don't
wish to expose enough functionality to be compatiable with boost
serialization - so were does it end?  And all this for just one such 
datatype
so far? Oh well.

Robert Ramey