Ares Lagae wrote:
* classes binary_istringstream, binary_ostringstream and binary_stringstream
The classes binary_istringstream, binary_ostringstream and binary_stringstream allow to read/write to a string that serves as buffer for the binary data. (althought a streambuf that writes to std::vector<unsigned char> would be more suited).
Indeed, basing this off basic_stringbuf (I suppose this is what you're doing) is most peculiar for binary data. Is there a specific reason why you don't want to write a stream buffer backed by a std::vector? These babies aren't particularly hard to write.
* << and >> operators for string types
The stream classes now only support fundamental data types. I am not sure how and wether to handle strings. For example, a regular char* string can be output as a null terminated array of char's, or as a size and a non null-terminated array of char's. Although I prefer the first solution (more portable, no problems with the size of the size type in the second solution), I am not sure if the library should make such a decision.
I fully agree with this decision. Writing strings is IMO a serialization issue and should not be part of a low-level binary I/O module.
* compression
I am also planning on adding a compressing_streambuf class, that can be used in both the IOStreams and the binary_iostreams library.
What kind of compression? Would it depend on external libraries? (zlib, libbzip2, ...) Is it worth the effort when Boost.IOStreams already supports compression?
* design
I agree with a lot of the comments on design of I/O libraries in the previous posts. However, I do not have the time to design and implement an improved I/O system for C++,
Would you be willing to help me in doing so? Sebastian Redl