Re: [Boost-users] Using boost::serialization in real-timewithoutallocating memory

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Using boost::serialization in real-timewithoutallocating memory
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-09-18 12:17:59

Peter Soetens wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 18:33, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Peter Soetens wrote:
>>
>>> I might do what you suggest or look for another serialization
>>> solution.
>>
>> Given the limited scope of what you want to do, it wouldn't be THAT
>> hard to make your own archive. Take a look at "trivial_archive" in
>> the documentation and build from that.
>
> Encouraged by your and Stefan's suggestions, I've spent another day at
> looking what the possibilities are.
>
> 1. I first created my own binary_?archive classes which inherited from
> common_?archive. This resulted in pulling in the library with the
> 'behind the scenes type tracking'. It seems, inheriting from common is
> not an option for me if I want 'zero-allocation' serialization.
> Correct ? (I also tested the demo_fast_archive.cpp extended with
> no_header, but that one also allocated).

That includes too much - I guess you've verified that.

> 2. I then tried to work further on Stefan's code snippet. It works,
> but indeed only for 'primitive_type's. I *think* I need functionality
> upto the 'object_serializable' if I want std::vector<T> as well. Since
> Stefan's operator& consumes every T, I'll need one operator& for each
> primitive type, and then an operator& that tries to save/load using
> free functions of the not primitive type.
>
> 3. It looks that I'll have to implement the Archive concept from
> scratch or at least based on Stefan's code and the
> load_binary/save_binary code from binary_?archive.
>
> Am I on the right track ?

Sounds like it to me. You might have to borrow some other pieces from other 
archive implementaions.

Robert Ramey

>
> Peter