|
Boost Users : |
Subject: [Boost-users] boost.serialization, asio and iostreams...
From: Hajo Kirchhoff (mailinglists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-03 15:06:45
(forwarded from asio.user as serialization questions might be more
appropriate here)
Hi all,
I plan to use serialization and asio together to exchange 'command
objects' between two applications. Basically marshalling an object and
sending it to a remote application.
There is a simple asio example using serialization, but there are two
issues I'd like to improve.
[1] I am concerned about performance. The example constructs and
destructs an archive for every single object and uses stringstream,
which creates and copies a string object.
Wouldn't using asio::tcp::iostreams give better performance?
and
[2]: I would like to utilize the boost.serialize class registration
system to allow peer programmers to create new objects. In the example I
would need to send a 'type' and the size manually in a 'header' before I
serialize and send the actual object. That would require a system wide
enumeration or other 'type' mechanism.
My idea is to require all objects be derived from a common polymorphic
base and then serialize a pointer to the object. The archive would
serialize the entire object and also send type information with it, so
the receiver could reconstruct the object simply by receiving a pointer.
class basic_command;
class my_command:public basic_command;
On the senders side:
my_command dosomething;
archive << &dosomething;
On the receiver side:
basic_command *next_command;
archive >> next_command;
next_command->execute();
This would have the benefit that new commands could simply be created by
deriving from basic_command. It might also have performance consequences
and I have one specific question:
For this in order to work I would need to disable tracking for
'my_command'. Otherwise only the very first instance of archive <<
&dosomething would actually send something.
Question: Can I 'reset' the binary archive such that the tracking
information is reset, but not the type information? Or can I temporarily
disable tracking for a class or for the next save/load operation?
I don't want to globally disable tracking for my_command, because I
cannot rule out that someone might actually want tracking for their
object in a different archive (such as saving settings to disk).
I'd love to hear from you and any comments are welcome. Has anyone
already done this? What are your experiences?
Regards
Hajo
Boost-users list run by williamkempf at hotmail.com, kalb at libertysoft.com, bjorn.karlsson at readsoft.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, wekempf at cox.net