Robert Ramey wrote:
This method would destroy the independence between class serialization specification and archive format. If I were going to do such a thing (which I'm not), I would build this logic into a new XML archive class. You're free to do this. (if your boss will give you permission)
It absolutely certainly will be a new archive class. Sorry if it wasn't clear from the start. I just think such an archive/serialization library is (a) useful enough to bea part of boost and (b) similar enough to the existing boost library to share the namespace with it. I understand fully that this idea works only with tagged formats (not necessary just XML), that's why I'm saying that it should probably use a different syntax or maybe a sub-namespace under boost::serialization. My boss :) would be happy to see such a library as a part of boost.
Actually this question touches upon a central issue about what serialization is all about and how it conflicts with what XML is all about.
[long quote snipped] I'm staying within program-structure-drives-data-format school of thought. I don't precisely understand how going in the other direction is ever useful. Okay, given a DTD, you can generate a program that could read and write a bunch of data structures; but what will it *do* with them? -- Anatoli Tubman PTC Israel (Haifa) Tel. (+972) 4-8550035 ext. 229