> -----Original Message----- > From: David Abrahams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 3:06 PM > To: boost > Subject: [boost] Serialization Review Results
I unfortunately haven't followed the detailed discussion on Robert's library proposal (although I'm working on catching up), but I'd like to go ahead and jump in... > 2. Careful description of scope. Answer questions like: > * Is it important to be able to plug in arbitrary archive > formats? > * Is it important to be able to use the same UDT serialization > code to write several different archive formats? I have a need to translate "my" format to "theirs" often enough, so I'd say yes to both of these if they're affordable. > * What kinds of applications are we explicitly NOT intending to > serve? Gennady Rozental suggested that database backends might not be appropriate, but it seems like pluggable archive formats make this doable. > * Is it important to allow all UDTs to be separately versioned? I'm in favor of being given the option of per-class versioning. We're currently developing an application which loads user objects dynamically. Unless there is some solution I'm overlooking, I don't see how a single version for an entire archive can possibly meet the needs of the application and its users. > Given the enormous interest in addressing this problem domain (or > domains) shown by Boost members, and the many offers of > participation, it would be a real shame if this review didn't > ultimately produce a Boost library that we can all stand > behind. Broader collaboration in the Boost tradition seems > like the best way to get there. I agree! I need to read the prior discussion and examine the library, but I'm willing to help if I can. -Greg Hickman _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
