Re: [Boost-users] [serialization] Serializing classes with nodefault constructors

On May 20, 2006, at 14:49, Robert Ramey wrote:

Hugh Hoover wrote:

...

Robert Ramey has mentioned in other messages that default construction with de-serializing is tantamount to "proper" construction anyway, and I agree with that - you need to consider the de-serialization as a form of construction rather than something you do the object after construction.

Hmmm - I don't remember saying that. In any case I feel quite

In the discussion: http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2005/09/13827.php You don't say exactly that - but that's what I inferred :)

confident that the load_constract_data method is functional, convenient, and even necessary in some cases. I have in reason to believe that it doesn't work with abstract base classes either. The serialization library keeps track of the types of derived pointers.

as near as I can tell, it DOES work for non-abstract derived classes in my tests (and the examples), but if you try to deserialize like: Base * pb = NULL; ar >> pb; Then you end up in load_construct_data_adl (Archive& ar, T*t,version) - which calls load_construct_data - which gets the default version because there is no definition of load_construct_data for the base class (in my case, anyway). I've not managed to get it to work in this case - and I didn't need it to, since I could write a serialize function with a private default constructor.