"Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental@thomson.com> wrote in message news:e28s8g$29i$1@sea.gmane.org... : I admit I must've misinterpret the problem domain you are trying to cover. : So now you are saying that your library should be used to implement : permanent data storage? But we already have a solution for that either. : Much better IMO in any sense (safety, convenience, automation etc). All in : all in between PO an Serialization library I do not see any place for this : submission. Hi Gennadiy, There is a profusion of applications that use xml, JSON, or a similar format for data storage. In all these applications, being able to dynamically manipulate an in-memory representation of the data structure is a very common need. boost::serialize goes straight from C++ object to stream, and there is no opportunity to manipulate the stored data in-memory (let me be corrected if I am wrong). : It's doesn't stand a comparison as runtime parameters support : facility even with PO library ( no conflict resolution, no formats : specification, no automatic/custom validation no async action assignment : etc). And it's doesn't stand a comparison as a permanent storage facility : with Serialization library (in most senses). Make no mistake these are two : different domains. xml, JSON, the Windows registry, some uses of command-line parameters, etc have a lot of common. And ptree seeks to provide a common in-memory representation for all these formats. I see a real value it in. But I have a question for you, or for any advanced user/developer of boost serialize: How would you look at ptree being a possible target format (Archive) for boost::serialize ? -- http://ivan.vecerina.com/contact/?subject=NG_POST <- email contact form