From: Boris (boriss_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-07 19:36:58
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:33:49 +0200, Jeremy Cowles
> [...]Thank you for the links, I will definitely take your suggestion into
> consideration. I have actually been doing some research on the different
> JSON implementations, and there seems there is no *complete* end-to-end
> solution. There are many holes and inconsistencies, like the one you
> mentioned. My aim is to create a complete implementation, based on the
> standard [i|o]archive Serialization interface that supports various
> formats, reads and writes, creates output in standard format, is well
> documented and has tests. Do you think this is a worth while goal?
I haven't used Boost.Serialization yet so others might have a more
qualified opinion. However as far as I know the file formats used to save
data are not really important as even if XML or JSON are used the data can
still only be loaded by another C++ application using Boost.Serialization?
The XML or JSON files can of course be processed by parsers implemented in
other programming languages. But for data exchange a library like
Boost.PropertyTree seems to be more suitable?
Even if there are no practical use cases (or maybe I just don't see them?)
adding JSON archives to Boost.Serialization would still be a worthwhile
goal: It will make you familiar with that library and might lead you to
new ideas which will help to improve the library. Adding JSON archives
would be the first step to become a Boost.Serialization Pro. :)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk