Re: [Boost-users] [serialization-1.32.0] de-serializing newer versions that the application can deal with

From: Roman Neuhauser (neuhauser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-16 11:11:25

# rael_at_[hidden] / 2006-06-16 07:05:56 -0500:
> On Friday, June 16, 2006 at 08:45:27 (+0100) Russell Hind writes:
> >Bill Lear wrote:
> >> 
> >> Versioning is per-class, and so why would you increment the version if
> >> you did not introduce forward-incompatible changes?  It seems that you
> >> only increment the version if you add/remove data members, reorder
> >> them, or whatever.  I don't really see a practical downside to having
> >> the library automatically puke if you are using old code to read a
> >> newer version of a class.
> >> 
> >
> >I don't expect the old version to read it successfully.  The 'puke' as 
> >you put it at the moment is an access violation.  Which basically may 
> >have left the process in an unstable state.  I want it to 'puke' but 
> >with an exception that can be caught and handled gracefully.  Not an 
> >access violation which basically means its anyones guess as to whether 
> >the software can run successfully.  Read my original post on the matter 
> >again.
> 
> I understood your original post and by "puke" I obviously meant throw
> an exception --- what else did you expect?  A silent exit?  Core dump?

    As far as I understand it, "access violation" is a segmentation
    fault, so yes, it is core dumping for him.

-- 
How many Vietnam vets does it take to screw in a light bulb?
You don't know, man.  You don't KNOW.
Cause you weren't THERE.             http://bash.org/?255991