Jorge Lodos wrote:
What I think PT must have that serialization library is not meant to is:
1. The ability to load/save properties independently, not as a whole. 2. A documented (for library extensibility) parser interface allowing parser developers to accomplish (1).
At least 3 storages requiring (1) come to mind: windows registry, ISA Server storage and IIS metabase. I would put these requisites as conditions for acceptance.
I think it is quite hard to require that a parser for config file X must exists for us to accept the library. It puts a great deal of burden on the library author. Our focus should be on the general core interface of the library s.t. we get a flexible solution that can be useful in many areas. Then if the author agrees to it, we can look at new parsers. -Thorsten