Re: [boost] [Serialization] Future of Boost.Serialization

Subject: Re: [boost] [Serialization] Future of Boost.Serialization
From: Daniel Larimer (dlarimer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-14 14:17:55

On 2/14/11 1:36 PM, "Germán Diago" <germandiago_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> I think that Boost.serialization library is a good library, but if it
> were written nowadays,
> it would be done in another way. I think that the correct way when
> c++0x is implemented
>  with some trait that identifies the members that you want to serialize, and,
> after that, return an in-memory object, like a string. Having the
> information provided
> by those members, you could implement generic
> and custom serializations: binary, json, and whatever, without having
> to code a special-purpose
> format for your specific library. This way we can make libraries useful
> to more people.

What do those who are more experienced with Boost.Serialization have to say
about the future of that library?  What direction is Boost.Serialization
going?  

It seems to me that Boost.Serialization is only compatible with itself and
even though it can 'read/write' to/from a XML or even a 'json' file, it
gives you very little control over the resultant structure of the file,
because it throws in version info, object graphs, etc.  So attempting to
implement a JSON RPC built on Boost.Serialization is difficult if you do not
control both sides of the RPC.

Another example would be implementing a binary RPC protocol that must
communicate with an embedded device that only supports C.  It would be very
difficult to craft specific byte streams from structs without knowing the
internals of Boost.Serialization.  It appears that the only option at the
moment is to implement your own Archive.

Dan