Vladimir Prus wrote:
Robert Ramey wrote:
Robert Ramey
It didn't require learning to use Boost.Serialization.
Here is what you're example looks like with boost serialization
#include <iostream> #include <boost/serialization/vector.hpp> #include <boost/serialization/map.hpp> #include <boost/serialization/list.hpp> #include <boost/serialization/string.hpp> //#include <boost/date_time.hpp> #include <boost/archive/text_oarchive.hpp> int main(int argc, char * argv[]){ boost::archive::text_oarchive output_log(std::cout); // simple vector example std::vector<int> vi; vi.push_back(1); vi.push_back(2); vi.push_back(3); output_log << vi;
While this is possible, with a custom archive class, I hope you'll agree that it will be rather heavyweight solution,
Hmmm - I realize that the serialization library has a lot of template code. But to me the issue is conceptual "heaviness". In both libraries, the idea is to wrap extra information about types so that they can easily be displayed on a stream. In either library you just write #include ... ... output_stream << data I just don't see the value in re-inventing of a whole new wheel. By the time such a library would pass the boost review process, I'm sure it would be just as heavy weight (or more) than boost serialization. One would have a whole new interface to to something that is less capable. Already the serialization library has an xml_archive as well as text archive.
while a simple output of output of std::vector can be implement in a 3-line template function.
I didn't have to write even one line to template code to implement the example. Robert Ramey