On 3/23/07, Robert Ramey <ramey@rrsd.com> wrote:
OK - I've taken a cursory look at this an it seems OK. I did have the expected "ripple" but it didn't end up so messy that I couldn't follow it.
However, there has to be an easier way to test it. I needs to be automatable in some way. We have a test "test_exported" - use that as a template. This will make the test compatible with our other tests and also permit it to be run against all future archives.
I realize you might have to make two/three test programs - one/two to create the test archives and another to read them. Then we'll make sure they are run in sequence.
Also we would need updated documentation for extended_type_info as well as BOOST_CLASS_EXPORT
Robert Ramey
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
I've attached a new patchfile and three new files that belong in the serialization test directory. They currently fail, but so does the test_exported.cpp test, which I did not change, except to fix a typo in a comment. They fail in exactly the same way, with a thrown boost::archive::archive_exception (what() == "unregistered void cast"). I'm at a loss, so I'll leave finding this particular problem to you, Robert. I did not change the documentation (again, except for a couple of typos). I'd be happy to do so later, but now seems to be the appropriate time to reopen the issue of whether BOOST_CLASS_EXPORT() should be given a warning in the docs or removed altogether. I favor removing it altogether. Currently, it only acts as a slightly more convenient form of BOOST_CLASS_EXPORT_GUID(), and as such users can easily get along without it. With it, and even with a suitable warning, over time users are bound to run into problems of classes changing names, which will cause archive incompatabilities. The ability to read and write archives compatably should trump the few saved keystrokes that providing BOOST_CLASS_EXPORT() allows. Zach Laine