From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-08 20:09:15
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:001401c4c5ec$46ea4b10$6501a8c0_at_pdimov2...
> Specifically, the current scheme for serializing a boost::shared_ptr is
> suboptimal, because it can't be used with another implementation of
> std::tr1::shared_ptr.
In general, serialization for any class is specific to that class
implementation. I don't think
makes sense to require that a serializtion implementation be independent of
the particular class implementtion. To do so will often result in a less
than optimal
implementation.
> And getting back to our filesystem example, if the interface states that
the
> external representation of a fs::path is the std::string returned by
> string(), then the library should provide support for just that, but in
the
> meantime, it should be possible for the end user to non-intrusively
> serialize a fs::path by defining an appropriate serialize(Archive&,
> fs::path&, unsigned long) overload.
By requiring that fs::path expose enough of its state to be serializable.
This
can be done either with an appropriate friend declaration or by making
somethings public.
Robert Ramey