Re: [Boost-users] [Boost.MPI] question about serializingcustomobject

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [Boost.MPI] question about serializingcustomobject
From: Elli Barasch (comptonsw_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-08-27 17:12:31

Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>David Abrahams wrote:
>>>> And since Boost.MPI and Boost.Serialization are so closely
>>>> related, I think it's especially important that *you* underestand.
>>>
>>> I disagree.  Boost MPI depends upon Boost.Serialization
>>> but not the other way around.
>>
>> I didn't say they were interdependent, just that they were
>> closely-related.  But anyway, I think you're being shortsighted: The
>> success of tools built on top of Boost.Serialization is an important
>> indicator of the correctness and genericity of its design.
>
>> Boost.Serialization *is* dependent on Boost.MPI for a portion of its
>> userbase,
>
><off topic> what portion of the user base? (This is a rhetorical question
>please don't spend any time answering it.)  It's always bothered me
>that we have no per library data/feedback on the interest/usage
>on a library by library basis. I've spoken about this before and
>I know you agree with me about it.  But until this get's addressed
>I think we just have to set these questions aside and recognize
>that the answers are anyone's guess.
>
><snip>
>
>> You can't be a generic serialization library without reference to real
>> applications.  Maybe you still haven't really decided whether serving
>> Boost.MPI and its users is something you want to do.
>
> I think that
>> might account for a good deal of the recurring friction we experience.
>> It would be a good idea to settle on an answer to that question, along
>> with the question of what other applications you're willing to
>> support.
>
>I am acutely aware of this aspect of "generic library design".  Every
>post on this list reminds me of it.
>
>>> I only really have few observations/suggestions at this point.
>>>
>>> a) It would be  helpful if there were a way to test the serialization
>>> of the archive classes in boost MPI without having MPI installed.
>>> If this is not possible, it would seem to me that the serialization
>>> is intertwined with the data transport - rather than be separated
>>> as it is in the stream/streambuf io/stream design.  This would look
>>> like a design flaw to me.
>>
>> Helpful to whom?  I agree this is all a good idea, but I'm not sure
>> how this relates to anything else we're discussing.
>
>It would permit me to use the MPI serialization as a use case
>to verify that I hadn't broken anything. I know what your going
>to say - concepts - but that is going to be a while before that
>happens.
>
>>> b) user experience seems to show that archive
>>> construction/destruction is a significant performance issue when a
>>> new archive is made for each data transmission.  On the other hand,
>>> one has to do this since the current archive implemenation track
>>> addresses of serialized obects so the same archive can't be use send
>>> the same structure (maybe with changed data) multiple times.
>
>> I can't understand how you reach that conclusion.  In my long
>> explanation I thought I made it clear that Boost.MPI and its database
>> get a great deal of its performance advantage from exactly that:
>> sending the same structure multiple times with the same MPI type map.
>
>hmm - what about tracked objects? I suggested turning off tracking
>and Matthias told me that it was needed to send pointers.  But for this
>to work an archive has to be reconstructed everytime to re-initialize
>the tracking lists.  I don't want to spend a lot of time on this as that
>means I have to delve into the MPI serialization and I don't want
>to do this.
>
>>> Given that MPI has a focus on performance, I wonder if this has been
>>> considered. I looked a the documentation, code and examples and it
>>> wasn't obvious to me how this is question was addressed - if at all.
>>
>> We've obviously misunderstood one another somewhere along the way.  It
>> would be good if we could get that cleared up.
>
>I think it would take too much time for me to understand.  And if I did
>come to understand it, I might have something to say about it.  If I
>said it, then it might start a thread which would cost even more time
>which I don't have right now.
>
>Robert Ramey
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Boost-users mailing list
>Boost-users_at_[hidden]
>http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users