BCCL : Serialization Concept
Hi, Is there something in the pipeline for BCCL to validate the serialization concept. Thank you, Nitin Motgi NITIN . DOT. MOTGI .AT. GMAIL .DOT. COM
Not that anyone has mentioned, so feel free to try your hand at it!! Robert Ramey nitin motgi wrote:
Hi,
Is there something in the pipeline for BCCL to validate the serialization concept.
Thank you, Nitin Motgi NITIN . DOT. MOTGI .AT. GMAIL .DOT. COM _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Hi, I have just put together the simplest form of concept checking for serialization. It basically checks if the class provides a mechanism for using operators << and >>. Any suggestions on this would be appreciated. Thank you, Nitin On 12/22/05, Robert Ramey <ramey@rrsd.com> wrote:
Not that anyone has mentioned, so feel free to try your hand at it!!
Robert Ramey
nitin motgi wrote:
Hi,
Is there something in the pipeline for BCCL to validate the serialization concept.
Thank you, Nitin Motgi NITIN . DOT. MOTGI .AT. GMAIL .DOT. COM _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- Nitin Motgi NITIN . DOT. MOTGI .AT. GMAIL .DOT. COM
On Dec 23, 2005, at 12:10 AM, nitin motgi wrote:
Is there something in the pipeline for BCCL to validate the serialization concept.
I don't know of anyone planning to do this, but it would be a great addition to the concept checking library. Doug
On Dec 29, 2005, at 4:31 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote:
On Dec 23, 2005, at 12:10 AM, nitin motgi wrote:
Is there something in the pipeline for BCCL to validate the serialization concept.
I don't know of anyone planning to do this, but it would be a great addition to the concept checking library.
The serialization concept might be a bit harder to validate than it seems initially, since there are various ways how serialization can be implemented. The ways that come to my mind (skipping over types directly supported by the library): - a serialize member function - a serialize free function - load_construct_data and save_construct_data functions for types without a default constructor, or types containing reference members - a save_override or load_override function in the archive class Before working on this, it would be best to formalize the concepts. Robert has recently improved the archive concepts, and they could be taken as a starting point for concept checking on archives. The formal concepts for serializable types are, have far as I know, not been sufficiently formalized yet. Matthias
Matthias Troyer wrote:
On Dec 29, 2005, at 4:31 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote:
On Dec 23, 2005, at 12:10 AM, nitin motgi wrote:
Is there something in the pipeline for BCCL to validate the serialization concept.
I don't know of anyone planning to do this, but it would be a great addition to the concept checking library.
The serialization concept might be a bit harder to validate than it seems initially, since there are various ways how serialization can be implemented. The ways that come to my mind (skipping over types directly supported by the library):
- a serialize member function - a serialize free function - load_construct_data and save_construct_data functions for types without a default constructor, or types containing reference members
Only required of types to be serialized via pointers.
- a save_override or load_override function in the archive class
Now that I think about it one can add - types marked as "primitive" with save/load functions in the archive class(s). BUT - To be of value, the "serializable" concept has to be definable independently of an archive class. This isn't that easy either as the set of "primitive" types will a vary depending on the compiler/library environment. - compositions of other serializable types. E.G. nvp<T> is serializable if and only if T is a serializable type. Collections of serializable types would fall into this catagory as well.
Before working on this, it would be best to formalize the concepts. Robert has recently improved the archive concepts, and they could be taken as a starting point for concept checking on archives. The formal concepts for serializable types are, have far as I know, not been sufficiently formalized yet.
Matthias
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
The serialization concept might be a bit harder to validate than it seems initially, since there are various ways how serialization can be implemented. The ways that come to my mind (skipping over types directly supported by the library):
- a serialize member function - a serialize free function - load_construct_data and save_construct_data functions for types without a default constructor, or types containing reference members - a save_override or load_override function in the archive class
In regards to validating the property/functionality of the serialization library can we not use a signature for each/a property/functionality. Because of the complexity and the depth of this library this kind of mechanism where in library tags a property/functionality and concept checker uses it to validate would be very useful. When library provider wants to validate some functionalities of serialization he would be able to do it in parts. IMHO I feel providing flexibility to allow users to check only for those parts of concepts they are interested in would be largely useful. E.g. NVP, Primitives ..etc. This will also allow users to use serialization concept check on older versions of serializable classes. -- Nitin Motgi NITIN . DOT. MOTGI .AT. GMAIL .DOT. COM
Wouldn't this be something that would be added to the serialization library as opposed to the concept checking library? BTW, a short while ago some code was posted to the list regarding this. I was curious that no one commented on it. Robert Ramey Douglas Gregor wrote:
On Dec 23, 2005, at 12:10 AM, nitin motgi wrote:
Is there something in the pipeline for BCCL to validate the serialization concept.
I don't know of anyone planning to do this, but it would be a great addition to the concept checking library.
Doug _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
participants (4)
-
Douglas Gregor -
Matthias Troyer -
nitin motgi -
Robert Ramey