Re: [boost] Comparison of serialization results

Subject: Re: [boost] Comparison of serialization results
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-12-31 11:03:11

on Fri Dec 30 2011, Brian Wood <woodbrian77-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

>  Dave Abrahams:
>>
>> No post-hock marshalling?  You should be able to add marshalling to a
>> class without modifying its declaration.
>>
>
> If a class is popular enough, I often do.  For example, the C++
> Middleware Writer (CMW) has support for the standard containers,
> std::complex, multi_index_container,  stable_vector and others.

I mean a user should be able to do that.

> [...]
>
>>
>> No argument; I'm just sayin'.
>
> I don't have to go to any great lengths to find tests where
> the performance of executables that use Boost Serialization
> lags behind CMW based executables.  I just think up a test
> and write it.  The tests are quite basic.
>
>>
>> That's a fundamentally intrusive design; being able to add serialization
>> non-intrusively was a major design goal for Boost.Serialization.
>
> I see.
>
> One thing I didn't mention yesterday is support for stream-
> based constructors:
>
> class Base
> {
>   template <typename R>
>   explicit Base (ReceiveBufferFile<R>& buf);
>
>   ...
> };
>
> Does the Boost Serialization library have support for that?

I don't know.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com