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

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-09-28 18:33:32

"JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z" wrote:
> I look forward to your opinions about my position on the
> generality of the helper API and about the flyweight case.
> In general, I understand your position and I think it's a
> reasonable one, given the particular weights you assign to
> the factors involved --different to mine. When we come to
> this point the thing it's not then about hard facts but
> opinions, but I hope I'll be able to pile some more arguments
> to my tip of the balance

I've given a cursory examination of you email and don't have
time right now to give the answer it merits.  However, I'm not
really looking to convince you that you have to give up something.
I expect to propose what you want factored in two pieces:
a) an implemenation of a "pure" archive concept
b) a mechanism for extending any class modeling the "pure"
concept above to address situations such as you describe.
Whether or not the "officially" supported boost archive classes
(text_?archive, xml_?archive, etc. ) should
include one or more such extensions would be a separate
discussion.  This is a question that I am less concerned about
personally.

Robert Ramey