From: Jeff Garland (azswdude_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-23 17:08:17
Sohail Somani wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 02:46:35 -0400, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
>>> If you look at the XML archive as an example, it is clear that any non
>>> boost-serialization processor needs to do specific things to understand
>>> the output. Specifically, the presence of object graphs is what I would
>>> see as the biggest hurdle.
>>> I think if you want the JSON archive to interface with the outside
>>> world, you should forgo object graph support. Or atleast support both
>> I think really Boost serialization just isn't the tool for the job if
>> you want to produce an archive that can be read by something other than
>> boost serialization.
> To reiterate, its really easy to write a JSON archive that operates just
> like current archives, but the thing to determine is whether Boost
> Serialization can inter-operate nicely with the outside world. I think
> the answer is yes, with limitations. IMHO, any GSoC application should
> address this, but I am not reviewing them so don't listen to me ;-)
I'm reviewing them (as are others listening here) and really suggest they
listen to you :-) I was actually unaware of the object graph limitations in
JSON. Of course it turns out there's at least one proposal to fix these problems:
Or the project could specify limitations to the types that can be serialized
in the archive. That's up to the students to propose...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk