From: Alberto Barbati (abarbati_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-20 14:38:41
Matthias Troyer wrote:
>
> On Monday, November 18, 2002, at 02:30 PM, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
>
>> I think taking out the pointer facility into a separate class would be
>> better design. By this I mean, that register_type<> and the logic for
>> identifying and maintaining pointers would be in a separate class from
>> the archive. The archive would hold an instance of this class (given
>> in the constructor), and use member functions of this container class
>> to determine what to do when it encounters a new pointer/alias. But
>> it seems to me this is not the case yet (again, correct me if I'm wrong).
>
>
> I want to second that vote. I would prefer a separate facility for
> pointer serialization, as an add-on to a serialization library if that
> is possible. Robert, what do you think, could it be separated out?
I already proposed a similar facility (under the unfortunate name of
"registry") in a few previous posts of mine. Yitzhak Sapir has expressed
my idea with much better words, so you may count my vote for it, too.
Alberto Barbati