From: "Robert Ramey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >FWIW, in my experience, XML is a better test for whether a serialization > >library handles custom formats well. Sequence-based, header-only formats are > >very similar, but a reasonable XML serializer creates a tree-like > >representation, with nested tags. > > After a cursory investigation as to what it would take to make an XML > archive, I've concluded that: > > a) I don't thing XML is rich enough to capture all possible C++ data structures > > b) This would imply the creation of a system of reflection for C++ > i) I not convinced this is a good idea > ii) should be dealt with as an indepent project in any case > > c) XML has a central task to represent data in a platform/programming language > independent way. Serialization has the central task of saving/restore the > totality of the state of C++ data structures. These tasks are not identical > and any course of action based on the presumption that they are is > doomed to be frustrating an most likely a failure in my opinion.
FWIW, my experience directly contradicts all of your points. It is possible that I misunderstood them, of course, as you haven't provided details. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
