On Wednesday, 14 August 2013 at 08:48:23 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2013-08-14 10:19, Tyler Jameson Little wrote:
Serious:
- doesn't use ranges
- does this store the entire serialized output in memory?
That's up to the archive how it chooses to implement it. But
the current XmlArchive does so, yes. I becomes quite limited
because of std.xml.
Well, std.xml needs to be replaced anyway, so it's probably not a
good limitation to have. It may take some work to replace it
correctly though...
- I would to serialize to a range (file?) and deserialize
from a
range (file?)
The serialized data is returned as an array, so that is
compatible with the range interface, it just won't be lazy.
The input data used for deserializing excepts a void[], I don't
think that's compatible with the range interface.
I'm mostly interested in reducing memory. If I'm (de)serializing
a large object or lots of objects, this could become an issue.
Related question: Have you looked at how much this relies on the
GC?
Minor
- Indentation messed up in Serializable example
Right, I'll fix that.
- Typo: NonSerialized example should read NonSerialized!(b)
No, it's not a typo. If you read the documentation you'll see
that:
"If no fields or "this" is specified, it indicates that the
whole class/struct should not be (de)serialized."
Ah, missed that.
