Thank you for the help. I have seen that link (the one you supplied) before, but I posted my question because that link in particular does not mention the words "Boost.Serialization" or "Archive" at all. I suppose what I was really getting at, and was probably not very clear about (sorry :| ) was whether the specific approach (by N. Becker) of using a stringstream wrapped with a boost::archive::binary_oarchive is a standard idiom. (Basically, I would have thought that "python pickle boost::archive" would be a million-hit Google query, but it's only about a dozen. I find that weird. Do people just not serialize their C++ extensions very often?) Thanks again. I really appreciate the help. MD ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 07:32:10 -0500 From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Boost.python serialization To: boost-users@lists.boost.org Message-ID: <uek4zfxdh.fsf@boost-consulting.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii "Drumheller, Michael" <michael.drumheller@boeing.com> writes:
I'm just getting started with trying to serialize some Python and C++ objects that are glued together with Boost.Python. Would it be fair to say that this link <<http://mail.python.org/pipermail/c++-sig/2004-September/008044.html>
represents the "standard" approach to this?
Yes. http://www.boost.org/libs/python/doc/v2/pickle.html -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com