From: JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-09-29 06:18:08
----- Mensaje original -----
De: Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]>
Fecha: Sábado, Septiembre 29, 2007 0:34 am
Asunto: Re: [boost] [serialization] Proposal for an extension API to
the Archive concept
> "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.
Please come back then when you have the time. Your elaborate
feedback is greatly appreciated, and we're not in a hurry to
get this sorted out.
> 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
> Robert Ramey
Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
PS: It's a pity nobody else has jumped into the discussion :(
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk