Oops, sorry about that. I'll check the past discussion. Daishi At Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:50:05 -0500, Zbigniew wrote: > > Daishi, > > A while ago we had a discussion on how portable s11n is, and how > portable it should strive to be. Felix gave a technical explanation > of the implementation here: > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/chicken-users/2005-11/msg00105.html. > The eggdoc also mentions that serialized data is endian- and > word-size-dependent, and when procedures/continuations are serialized > this dependency extends to identical binaries. The egg is not > intended to be terribly robust as S-exprs are (sometimes) a good > alternative. > > I believe if you do not serialize procedures or continuations, it > should deserialize across Chicken versions, but I have not tried. > > As an aside, I -think- endianness is not a factor any more, I had > provided a simple patch which removed this limitation. This was only > to make testing easier for me on a heterogeneous network. Further > robustness was deemed outside the scope of the egg. > > I hope this helps. > > On 7/20/06, Daishi Kato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Is it well known that a serialization and a deserialization > > are not compatible between different chicken versions? > > Any way for convertion? any workaround? > > > > Thanks, > > Daishi > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Chicken-users mailing list > > Chicken-users@nongnu.org > > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users > >
_______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
