Re: [Boost-users] [serialization] polymorphic portable binaryexamplenot working.

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [serialization] polymorphic portable binaryexamplenot working.
From: Mostafa (mostafa_working_away_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-15 01:53:19

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:41:36 -0700, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Mostafa wrote:
>>> This is out of date. Look at another polymorphic archive header.
>>> For example polymorphic_text_oarchive.hpp.  Make the changes
>>> and post a patch in the track system.  Also you might find the
>>> "class diagram" link helpful.
>>>
>>> Robert Ramey
>>>
>>
>> Should I then conclude that polymorphic_portable_binary_iarchive.cpp
>> and polymorphic_portable_binary_oarchive.cpp are no longer needed. They
>> don't have a counterpart vis-a-vis
>> polymorphic_text_oarchive.hpp, and I got portable binary archives to
>> work without them.
>
> polymorphic versions of the archive classes are only needed if
> you want to use the polymorphic archive interface rather than
> the more common non-polymorphic interface.

I understand that.  What I don't understand is the need for the  
polymorphic .cpp files.  All they seem to be doing is explicitly  
instantiating templates.  Additionally, they fail to compile because  
basic_pointer_iserializer and basic_pointer_oserializer are no longer  
template classes.  Because there's no polymorphic_text_oarchive.cpp  
counterpart, I didn't have a template (no pun intended) for fixing the  
polymorphic .cpp files.  For these reasons I left them out of my build,  
and I was able to compile and test BOTH the polymorphic and  
non-polymorphic archives against strings and longs.  So, basically the  
question I had left was should the polymorphic *.cpp files be fixed or  
just left out when I post a patch to the trac?

Thanks,

-Mostafa