Re: [boost] [Boost Review] Property Tree Library
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Jorge Lodos Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 2:55 PM Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost Review] Property Tree Library
What I think PT must have that serialization library is not meant to is:
1. The ability to load/save properties independently, not as a whole. 2. A documented (for library extensibility) parser interface allowing parser developers to accomplish (1).
At least 3 storages requiring (1) come to mind: windows registry, ISA Server storage and IIS metabase. I would put these requisites as conditions for acceptance.
And 3. The ondisk representation should be manually editable (i.e. by human beings) Given some posts I've seen, this seems not necessarily to be a primary goal of serialization while I'd count that a must-have for some config formats (e.g. XML representation should have a DTD, schema or something etc.). cheers, aa -- Andreas Ames | Programmer | Comergo GmbH | Voice: +49 69 7505 3213 | ames AT avaya . com
3. The ondisk representation should be manually editable (i.e. by human beings)
Why? I see why this could be nice but not a must have. After all you already have a GUI tool for config modification (this is how it was all started isn't it?) Gennadiy
On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 11:20:52 -0400 "Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental@thomson.com> wrote:
3. The ondisk representation should be manually editable (i.e. by human beings)
Why? I see why this could be nice but not a must have. After all you already have a GUI tool for config modification (this is how it was all started isn't it?)
Config files are edited by hand all the time, and the serialization archives are very difficult to edit by hand.
participants (4)
-
Ames Andreas -
Gennadiy Rozental -
Jody Hagins -
Russell Hind