From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-16 20:28:26
> So to me it seems natural
> to included in the header along with the whole
> class declaration.
Consider a library that provides foo.h, which defines class foo, and a
program that #includes "foo.h" because it needs to use class foo, but it
doesn't need to serialize it. To me, it isn't natural for such a program to
require boost serialization headers.
I suppose you could separate serialize/load/save overloads in a different
header file, but because typically they need to be friends, foo.h would have
to declare them in order to make them friends, which is a hassle. Instead,
you could simply define serialize/load/save directly in foo.h without
including any serialization stuff -- except that a program that does
serialize foo objects would have to register class foo "manually".
> That way when that header gets
> used by other programs, they all share the same
> external name - as they should since they're sharing
> the same header.
If I want to make a particular class to have the same external name across
multiple programs, this is easy to achieve by sharing the code that
registers that class with boost serialization. I just don't think that the
class' header file is the best place for this registration.
Emil Dotchevski