From: Jeff Garland (azswdude_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-23 17:08:17
Sohail Somani wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 02:46:35 -0400, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
>
>>> If you look at the XML archive as an example, it is clear that any non
>>> boost-serialization processor needs to do specific things to understand
>>> the output. Specifically, the presence of object graphs is what I would
>>> see as the biggest hurdle.
>>> I think if you want the JSON archive to interface with the outside
>>> world, you should forgo object graph support. Or atleast support both
>>> modes.
>> I think really Boost serialization just isn't the tool for the job if
>> you want to produce an archive that can be read by something other than
>> boost serialization.
>
> To reiterate, its really easy to write a JSON archive that operates just
> like current archives, but the thing to determine is whether Boost
> Serialization can inter-operate nicely with the outside world. I think
> the answer is yes, with limitations. IMHO, any GSoC application should
> address this, but I am not reviewing them so don't listen to me ;-)
>
I'm reviewing them (as are others listening here) and really suggest they
listen to you :-) I was actually unaware of the object graph limitations in
JSON. Of course it turns out there's at least one proposal to fix these problems:
http://www.jspon.org/?mode=html&noscript=true
Or the project could specify limitations to the types that can be serialized
in the archive. That's up to the students to propose...
Jeff