Michael Behrns-Miller wrote:
3) I realize I can split serialize() into separate load/save functions. However, I appreciate the recommendation to use one serialize() function, where the load/save order is easier to maintain. However again, I absolutely need (I think :>) to know, within that function, if I am loading or saving. It's the only way I can efficiently handle versioning or handle dynamic allocations, and still use one serialize() function, as far as I can tell. Bottom line: I now have isSaving(archive)/isLoading(archive) functions, can these be added to the library? Or am I approaching this wrong?
for saving/loading. (I sent Robert the code. He didn't have a chance to answer, yet. The code works for me, but I think it's not yet complete. If Robert thinks it is useful then we'll publish it here.) During the writing, I missed some additional documentation about how to write these wrappers and had to resort to reading the source. Since my understanding of that topic isn't complete, I currently can't contribute
I think this approach is viable. However, I also think a different approach could be better: using a Serialization Wrapper. With a wrapper you're still be able to use the "ar &" notation while the wrapper itself can split into load/save functions. I recently discovered that (I'm a new user of Boost.Serialization myself) while trying to write code that reuses operator << and operator the documentation I missed. Robert (and others), do you think some framework to enable users to write their own wrappers would be useful? (A simple and slow one could use user-provided functors for converting to/from a string.) Could you comment on whether it is desirable to enable users to write their own wrappers? Regards, m Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com