In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 22:17:51 -0800 Robert Ramey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > It will be much easier to switch to the new boost framework if > archives in the old format can still be loaded (without having > 2 lots of code). > [...] > Eventually when all your old files have been processed, you can > remove the old MFC serialization code from your classes.
This sounds to me like having 2 lots of code. As long as the old archives need to be loaded (which is basically forever in my case), the user-defined classes need code to load them in addition to code to support boost. My classes would still need to inherit from CObject. I was hoping the new UDT code could replace the old UDT code. It could then form part of a migration away from MFC and CObject, towards boost and greater platform neutrality. It would involve a boost archive which exactly matched Microsoft's format. I wouldn't expect boost to provide this out of the box, but it would be nice if the design didn't preclude it. It implies a certain freedom about archive preambles, object factory registration, etc. -- Dave Harris _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
