Re: [Boost-users] [serialization]conflictingdeclaration(BOOST_CLASS_EXPORT)

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [serialization]conflictingdeclaration(BOOST_CLASS_EXPORT)
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-25 12:59:15

Emil Dotchevski wrote:
> There is another problem as well: it is useful to be able to have a
> function which registers classes to be serialized, then serializes
> them, then frees all the memory taken by the registration (this is a
> separate issue, but being able to unregister also allows unloading of
> dynamic libraries.)

The current library provides a conforming method to "register"
serialization types on an archive by archive basis.  For their
own reasons, many users have preferred the CLASS_EXPORT
method with its attendant issues.  Its really an issue
with the way the user has chosen to use the library
rather than the library itself.

> So why not allocate the object that stores the registration state
> dynamically? For example, provide a factory function:
> shared_ptr<serialization_class_registry>
> create_serialization_class_registry(). Of course, the user is free to
> store the returned shared_ptr globally if that suits their taste.

As I understand this suggestion, I see no conflict with
the current library if someone wants to do this.

Robert Ramey