And along these lines, what if that virtual base class is a template? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13447688/will-boost-serialization-work-st... Or is this just too much for lil ole' C++? I know I could do it implementing IXmlSerializable in C# with relative ease. On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Michael Powell wrote:

On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Michael Powell wrote:

...

Hello,

I am trying to follow the code in http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_53_0/libs/serialization/doc/serialization.ht... and finding non-member function void boost::serialization:save(Archive&, ...). What am I doing wrong?

I am also studying this post for answers: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/boost-Serialization-V1-42-0-Question-abou...

Seems the issue is still (potentially) somewhat intrusive, at least if you want to not expose a lot of fields for public inspection?

Still getting C++ errors though. I am attempting to friend boost::serialization methods across namespaces into dchem::model namespace. Any problems with that, per se?

...

As the name suggests, I would like to split the load and save concerns. From what I can tell, needs to be in the boost::serialization namespace? Anything else?

Thank you...

Regards,

Michael Powell

On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Michael Powell wrote:

...

Hello,

Basically, I'd like to find out how well the boost serialization facilities handle Xml and to what degree, robustness, etc.

I am counting the cost of serialization for our model. We'll need do some basic CRUD type operations on our model objects throughout our system, and I want to use a nicely loosely coupled solution. Xml is the thought at first; I've also considered a lightweight database like SQLite which transfers easily for patches, upgrades, and other transfers.

Looking at the boost serialization facilities, one keyword was emphasized in the tech-agnostic serialization documentation. Tech meaning whether this is a binary file, text, JSON, Xml, whatever. The keyword being that serialization and load occur in the same order.

Enter the desire for Xml. One common problem in .NET C# land, at any rate, is that reads are commonly known as being asymmetric from writes. That is, not guaranteed to happen in the same order, composition, whatever. That is, you may see attributes in one instance, where as in another the element might have been broken out.

Such as: <myObject name="something" /> and <myObject><name>something</name></myObject> are technically the same. The serializer might scoff at that, but I'm not sure the W3C suggest otherwise. That's my loose understanding of the specification.

Regards,

Michael Powell