This would probably work with the protobuf format.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 7, 2011, at 12:28 PM, dsimcha <dsim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 8/7/2011 2:27 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2011-08-07 17:45, dsimcha wrote:
>>> On 8/7/2011 11:36 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>>> Currently, the only available format is XML.
>>>
>>> Ok, I'll look into writing a binary archiver that assumes that the CPU
>>> architecture on the deserializing end is the same as that on the
>>> serializing end. If it works, maybe Orange is a good choice.
>>
>> Sounds good. I just hope that the current design allows for a binary
>> archive. Currently the serializer in Orange assumes that an archive can
>> deserialize a value based on a key which could be basically anywhere in
>> the serialized data. This allows at least to implement archives which
>> store the serialized data in a structured format, e.g. XML, JSON, YAML.
>> I don't know if that's possible with a binary format, I'm not familiar
>> with how to implement a binary format.
>>
>
> Yeah, I was trying to wrap my head around the whole "key" concept. I wasn't
> very successful. I also tried out Orange and filed a few bug reports. It
> may be that Orange isn't the right tool for the job for MPI, though modulo
> some bug fixing and polishing it could be extremely useful in different cases
> with different sets of tradeoffs.
>
> In addition to the bug reports I filed, why is it necessary to write any
> serialization code to serialize through the base class? What's wrong with
> just doing something like:
>
> class Base {}
> class Derived : Base {}
>
> void main() {
> auto serializer = new Serializer(new XMLArchive!());
>
> // Introspect Derived and figure out all the details automatically.
> serializer.register!(Derived);
> }
>
