"JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z" wrote:
Ok now I understand, and basically share, your concerns about the lack of documentation on what goes into the serialization stream. Of course I can document my part in the case of B.MI, but for this to constitute a real cross-platform, cross- implementation spec one would additionally need that:
1. Other serializable types (serialization primitive and otherwise) do the same and document their way of stuffing themselves down the wire. 2. Boost.Serialization exposes its internal mechanism for serialization --I'm thinking here of things like versioning and pointer tracking-- at least to the extent that they reflect on what gets actually saved to the stream.
This initiative is interesting (and would be almost mandatory if B.S was ever proposed to the standard) but its scope is community-wide and beyond the realm of an isolated class' definition IMHO. What does Robert think about this?
My stated goal was to permit the serialization an de-serialization of any group of C++ data structures in the most expendient way. I wanted the system to be simple to use, complete and efficient. To this end, I made a determined effort to separate the external aspects in the "archives" and description of the class attributes related to serialization in "serialization" I refrained from and a-priori definition and description of the external format for a couple of reasons: a) it was too hard - I would require a huge amount of work and forsight. b) I believed - and still believe - that it conflicted with my stated goals above. c) I didn't think that the investment of time would be worth it in brining the package "to market" After some experience in seeing how the package is being used and how hard/easy it is to use, I don't regret my decisions. If one want's to add an externallly defined language independent format to the above goals, I think one will be doomed to failure. Of course I could be wrong and anyone is free to take a crack at it. Lots of people have. I'm not sure how all the other systems out there compare to boost serialization these days. So I don't see an externally documented format for this boost serialization. Hence I don't see anything like boost serialization ever appearing in the standard. Perhaps some system which might functionally similar but I think it would have to be grown from scratch with a different set of goals and priorities. Which is the reason that I think the whole concept of library standards have been over-applied and even detremental to the future success of C++. Robert Ramey