From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-05 11:14:07
JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z wrote:
> So, I had no other choice but to implement serialization
> support for Boost.MultiIndex in an interface intrusive way.
> The morale of the story is: for rich-state classes where the
> exact state of an object depends heavily on its past history,
> non-intrusive serialization can be either algorithmically
> unfeasible (it is hard or impossible to reconstruct the
> history from the current state) or potentially less efficient
> than a interface intrusive approach. This does not mean that
> the class interface or the serialization support implementation
> are "broken".
Thx for explaining this. I'd like to go back the the header inclusion
dependency issue. The need for internal access isn't a reason why the
serialization headers need to be 'included by default'. A friend
class/function in separate serialization header could implement the
serialization using the internal mechanisms that are otherwise an
implementation detail.
Jeff