Robert Ramey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The fundamental problem that Serialization addresses is the > reversable deconstruction of an arbitrary set of C++ objects to a > stream of bytes. That's all it is. We know that it is useful for > certain things, but that doesn't mean its going to be useful for > everything. > > If that's not what you want to do, then such a library is not going > to be of help and some other method or tool will have to be used.
I believe that everyone who participated in the discussion wanted to do that, but had additional requirements as well. > This whole discussion is not about serialization but about a > completly different topic. Which topic? > It seems that there is a strong belief that there can be created a > generic system which will map an arbitrary set of C++ objects in a > meaningful way to another other format. I think that if you have reversible "deconstruction of an arbitrary set of C++ objects to a stream of bytes", then you have mapped the objects to another format in a meaningful way. If it was meaningless, it wouldn't be reversible. In fact, there are many meaningful ways to do this mapping that /aren't/ reversible, so if you have a reversible deconstruction, you've achieved something even stronger. Reading your next paragraph, maybe what you mean by "in a meaningful way" is something like, "in such a way that the meaning of the original data might be deduced without referring to the source code that serialized it". That appears to be part of what the XML crowd is after when we start talking about serializing field labels and type names. However, I think we need to be careful not to be too absolute about the requirement for meaningfulness here. Even if it is possible to fully recover the structure of the data, unless all the classes in question are "just-a-struct", the serializing program will still contain other information about the data abstraction which will never appear in the archive. Finally, if we're going to discuss this kind of mapping, it behooves us to be up front about whether the archived representation has to reflect the physical layout of the data or whether it can be an abstracted representation. > Such a system will necessarily have to start with a system of > reflection that describes all aspects of data structures that the > system aspires to support. For example, if XML is to be supported, > items will have to have external names. Once this system of > reflection (or meta-data) were specified, then importers/exporters > to from/to each file format would be created. There is at least one > commercial product that does this (Data Junction) This is a hugely > ambitious undertaking that is only tenously related to > serialization. I think that if we ignore (for the moment) that XML happens to be a text-based format, the connection to serialization would be that any format which uses this kind of tagged metadata needs to archive that data somehow. If a serialization library provides some layer of abstraction for formatting, once an application begins writing a format with metadata it can take advantage of the serialization library to plug in different formats. If you are asserting that archiving with metadata is a different problem from archiving without metadata, I think I agree with you. I'm not ready to say that they're unrelated, though. It seems that the metadata archiving problem could be seen as a generalization of what you're calling "serialization". For example, if you write generic code to archive your data with metadata, I can imagine using the same generic archive writing code to write a format without metadata. Since reading/writing multiple formats appears to be important for some people, this could allow them to write one body of code to do the whole job. > I was unprepared for the response to the submission of the > serialization library for formal review. I had expected some flack > over implemenation issues (indeed I got my share). I had a lot > difficulty getting this implemented. The wide variety of compiler > issues made things much more difficult. I got some flack over > interface issues - basically "registration" and "describe". Your description of the review feedback as "flak" reflects, IMO, a big part of the reason that the submission hasn't been accepted yet. Boost libraries are in many ways about clear communication. The formal review process is designed to be a process of deepening understanding both for the reviewers and the library authors. A productive relationship to questions and negative feedback results in increased clarity for one or both sides of the conversation, about the scope of the domain, the needs of potential users, insurmountable implementation limitations, trade-offs that were considered, etc. At the end of the review, I wasn't comfortable that this communication had been achieved. The library reviewers ought to keep their review comments on a productive level, but ultimately the "burden of success" for this communication rests with the submitter. To be successful, the submitter has to embrace the process, and in the majority of cases, when libraries are not accepted (or don't even make it to the review stage) it is because of the submitter's relationship to the review feedback. > I was sensitive to these issues but hadn't been able to come up with > good implemenations of these features. ( BTW, the review process > has given me new ideas and information regarding these issues and I > believe they can be addressed in a satisfactory way.) That's great news! > Someone always complains that the generic solution is "not > efficient" I think that's relatively rare, actually, because "generic" these days usually means "templated and inlined". > and wants it to have more specific features. I am generally > skeptical of these unless accompanied by hard data which is almost > never submitted. If you're referring to Matthias' claim that a virtual function call for each element of an array of 10M complex numbers will have a noticeable impact, I guess it's easy enough to test. Did you ever request a test? > What really through me for a loop was that most of the objections to > the submissions were that it wasn't something else. It seems that > there was a fundamental difference between what users expected a > "serialization" library to do and what serialization libraries > generally do (Common C++, and MFC in particular as well as > references > http://www.riehle.org/computer-science-research/1996/plop-1996-serializer.html > ) I suppose different people want to define serialization differently. Getting back to the issue of communication, one thing I'd like to have seen out of the review, if you were covering a more-limited scope, was a clear understanding on all sides of the relationship between the "something else" that others wanted and what you're implementing. > In this aspect I believe that the review results fairly reflected > the views of those who commented on the issue. However, I believe > the rejection was for the wrong reasons. This has led to the > current discussion which I believe is really not about serialization > at all. What is it about? -- David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost