El Lunes 09 Junio 2008 19:32:20 Robert Ramey escribió:
My question has been and still remains:
Suppose that one has serialization specified for all his classes. He can now serialize to any archive classs. Now he says - oh someone wants YAML - use that - Damn. Using this one archive requires that I go back and change the serialization of all my classes to support this one additional archive. This imposes special requirements on serializable types for a particular archive class - Thus coupling two concepts where great effort has been expended to maintain them as orthogonal.
But, doesn't the XML archive force you to change your serialization as well? I mean, you need to serialize every member with BOOST_SERIALIZATION_NVP. If I serialized my objects with the text or the binary archives, I would have to change their serialization if I wanted to use the XML archive.
I would guess that if YAML needs anything, it would be some unique class identifier. perhaps you might consider the class ID - maybe enclosed in quotes.
Sorry if I didn't explain myself properly. Maybe it's a bit easier with an example, here's an object serialized in YAML with pyyaml: !!python/object:namespace.A a_string: some string an_int: 0 an_object: !!python/object:namespace.B a_float: 3.14 I know that Boost.serialization doesn't try to deserialize any kind of document, even if it's well formed. "Boost.serialization only (de)serializes Boost.serialization documents" has become my mantra :-) I can replace those !!python/object:namespace.{A,B} with !!boost/object:class_id_{0,1} in the worst case, but would prefer to expose class names if I can.
Natually, discussion of all the above issues has to be part of the documentation.
Good Luck.
Thanks for taking the time for explaining all this. It was very constructive, really. Cheers.