Re: [Boost-users] boost::serializationunregistered_classexceptionswith DLL.

From: Terence Wilson (tez_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-19 17:58:07

Dear Robert,

If there's anything I can do to help with Windows specific DLL issues let me
know, I would be happy to help. I would take a stab at a Windows only fix
but I fear it would take too long to climb the learning curve.

Terence

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-users-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-users-
> bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Robert Ramey
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 2:47 PM
> To: boost-users_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [Boost-
> users]boost::serializationunregistered_classexceptionswith DLL.
> 
> I believe it is fixable in a general and definitive way.  And I've slowly
> been gathering the information needed to address this for differenent
> operating systems.  Also, I havn't been able to see a way to use bjam to
> run
> a test which dynamically loads/unloads separately built DLLS. I'm still
> thinking about this.  Also,  I don't have the time I used to for this
> stuff,
> so - short answer is that I wouldn't count on this being addressed anytime
> soon.
> 
> Note that this isn't really a design feature of the library.  Its just
> that
> the concept what DLLS which contain partial class implementations (with
> base
> impleentation somewhere else) was never considered.   We tried to consider
> everything - but its not easy
> 
> Robert Ramey
> 
> Terence Wilson wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> > Robert,
> >
> > I've used your serialization library for small projects and I like it
> > a lot, however, the DLL class registration bug/oversight makes it all
> > but impossible to use in a Windows project that separates
> > implementation of classes across modules. We have several classes
> > that have encapsulated bases implemented within a 'base' DLL,
> > specializations of these classes are loaded at runtime on an
> > as-needed basis. Your current design requires that *all* class
> > registration occur within the base class module, in other words, the
> > base DLL must have knowledge of all other DLL classes that derive
> > from one or more of its base classes. This turns any good
> > object-oriented design on its head and is not an option.
> >
> > Is there any chance of a fix in the near future?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Terence
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Boost-users mailing list
> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users