From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-19 11:03:04
Jeff Garland wrote:
>> Robert Ramey wrote:
>> So I'm skeptical of trying to adjust to "old" proprietary formats
>> with the serialization library.
> Well, I believe you are taking too narrow a view here.
OK, I'll expand my horizon a bit. I can see how one might want to make
special purpose archive which only handles a subset of all possible C++
structures. So it really comes down to evaluating the specific situation.
There is nothing in the serialization library which conflicts with such
usage so I'm happy to remain agnostic ( though still perhaps wary ) on this
case.
I wonder what happens when we need "special" information in the archive. I
faced the same problem with XML where we need the name of the instance
variable. I solved it by making the NVP wrapper which has worked well.
However it does introduce a coupling between the archive and the
serialization which I had strived to avoid. The best I could do was to make
it optional and transparent to those archives which didn't use it. In order
to do this I had to make all archive classes aware of it. Well, for XML
this might be justified but in general I would find it objectionable.
When one makes the archive dependent upon the serialization (E.G. by
addressing only a subset of all C++), he won't be able to run the torture
test suite. Personally, I consider this a significant liability.
So anyway, if it works for a specific problem, then of course I've got no
concerns.
If its proposed as addition to the library, I would like to see it be
universal as the current ones are - if only for the reason that a new
archive can be subjected to the torture test with very little effort.
So to summarize, if one wants/needs to make special purpose archive which
handles a subset of all types - no problem. But it probably would not be of
interest outside of the particular application.
Robert Ramey