From: JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-18 15:19:47
----- Mensaje original -----
De: bwood <brass_at_[hidden]>
Fecha: Sábado, Febrero 18, 2006 7:42 pm
Asunto: Re: [boost] [serialization] exception-safety of
container-serialization
> Joaquín M López Muñoz wrote:
> >I would NOT go for the strong guarantee for the following
> two reasons:
>
>
> >1. Given the basic guarantee, all-or-nothing semantics can
> >be implemented externally, and as efficiently as you'd do it
> >internally.
> >2. It might be of interest to keep a partially recovered object.
> >For instance, think of the situation in which a container is
> being
> >marshalled thru a socket and you lose internet conectivity.
>
> I started to reply to this and then wondered if I understood
> what you meant. Were you talking about the container as the
> "partially recovered object" or an object that will be stored
> by the container?
The former.
> The subsequent discussion I guess points to
> the latter. I think the first case is interesting. If a program
> sends 100 objects and another receives 99 of them no problem,
> it would probably be helpful to get that information back to
> the sender so the whole thing isn't repeated. Does Boost::
> serialization support this?
>
It does, at least for STL containers: if an error is
found during the process of loading elements into a container,
the container retains the elements succesfully loaded
so far.
Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://listarchives.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost