Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Updated performance resultsusing BoostSerialization 1.41
From: troy d. straszheim (troy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-09 15:25:46

Kim Barrett wrote:
> While that is an interesting solution to some problems, I don't
> think it actually helps with my use-cases (multiple).
> As mentioned earlier, turning off pointer tracking is not an
> option for me in some cases. I can envision various ways to deal
> with that. If one had a means for determining whether serializing
> a data structure used or would use tracking one could use this
> approach now, with no [further] changes to the serialization
> library.
> However, none of my existing use-cases are stream oriented. They
> are instead all transaction / packet oriented. This means there
> needs to be a clear boundry, where all output to be generated by
> the archive has been flushed to the buffer collecting the data,
> any "end of archive" data needs to be written, and the next
> transaction / packet needs to include any "beginning of archive"
> data needs to be written again. Right now I'm accomplishing that
> by deleting the old archive and creating a new one. I'm looking
> for either a lighter weight alternative to that (preferably), or
> a way to make that delete / recreate lighter weight.

How about flush()? I implemented such a thing back in 2005:

I would still find it useful, I have a lot of code that relies on
anonymous scopes to control construction/destruction of archives,
the code would look a lot more straightforward if I could just flush().
The use case is can be modeled the same was as sending packets over
the network. Each packet needs to have internal pointer tracking, but
independent of the others.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at