[Boost-users] [Serialization] Questions / Comments

Subject: [Boost-users] [Serialization] Questions / Comments
From: Rutger ter Borg (rutger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-07-16 14:16:12

After having used the serialization library for quite a while, it seems that 
I'm approaching a point where I are seeing lots duplicate code which could 
be inside a serialization function. In turn, this head lead me to some 
questions / comments.

The use of serialization in my case is both file and network oriented. This 
means reading and writing a great deal of short-lived archives. Works fine 
in between c++ programs, but outside that it's quickly becoming an 
infeasible task. Creating a custom archive could be an option, however, I 
would need to spend serious time on understanding the code due to the heavy 
use of macros. 

The question to be answered first is whether the current serialization 
architecture is able to fulfill my needs, or whether I should consider using 
other options. Considering the following two scenarios / questions:

1) Suppose I would like to create a custom XML archive which can both read 
shuffled XML data (its attributes/values in arbitrary order), and serialize 
to child attributes as well as named child nodes.

Currently, name-value pairs are in the Serializable concept. I think they 
belong in the Archive Concept. Otherwise, it may be impossible to read XML-
formatted data where the nodes are not in the same order as in the C++ code?

In addition, suppose serializing a program structure is like a tree or 
graph, then name-value-pairs do not allow for any other nesting than the C++ 
code (i.e., it assumes everything is a child node). To allow for making 
distinction between nesting levels, one could think of, e.g.,

template< typename Archive >
void serialize( Archive& ar, const unsigned int version ) {
  ar.serialize_node( "subtree", m_contained_class );
  ar.serialize_attribute( "use_count", m_int );
}

Is something like this possible? To this end, would it be possible to plug-
in another parser, e.g., RapidXML?

2) I would like to create an archive that speaks the Action Message Format 
(AMF). Although I do have trouble finding a clear distinct parsing layer in 
the archives, I think this is possible to do. However, perhaps you think 
archive/serialization should not be used in conjunction with these kinds of 
uses. 

Many thanks in advance,
Kind regards,

Rutger ter Borg