Re: [boost] Interest in serialization library

Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in serialization library
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-12-28 03:45:10

On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 12:07 PM, iwg molw5 <iwg.molw5_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]
>> wrote:
>
>> Could you elaborate? A short example would certainly help.
>>
>
>   struct S
>   {
>       int x;
>   };
>
>   namespace framework {namespace serializable {
>       template <>
>       serializable_specification <S>
>       {
>           template <typename Input>
>           static bool read (Input& in, S& out)
>           {
>               return serializable_specification <little_endian
> <int>>::read(in, out.x));
>           }
>
>           template <typename Output>
>           static bool write (S const& in, Output& out)
>           {
>               return serializable_specification <little_endian
> <int>>::write(in.x, out));
>           }
>       };
>   }}
>
> Admittedly, the above is not particularly palatable - I wanted to
> introduce nested serializable_specification calls and avoid
> referencing operator types above.  The library does not constrain the
> stream type - the above could just as easily assume the presence of stream
> operators and use those.  See:
>
>   framework/serializable/custom_serialization.cpp
>
> for a more complete example and:
>
>   framework/serializable/custom_serialization_boost.cpp
>
> for a syntax closer to that used by boost.

I see. It would be great if the library provided a way to define the
serialization format as a grammar separately from the object
definition - perhaps similarly to how Boost.Fusion adapts structs or
in pure C++ syntax without macros in Boost.Spirit style; whichever
works best. The serializable_specification approach can be useful for
tricky cases but as a general solution it doesn't provide a good
readable description of the target format.

One more question. Does the library provide a portable binary format
for floating point numbers?