On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 13:34 +0300, Tomash Brechko wrote: > On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 10:04:28 +0000, Ciaran wrote: > > Even this (string, integer and floating point [byte-array also?] ), would be > > a better state-of-affairs for people who are working with the cache in a > > mixed platform (as I currently am!) > > No doubt. Actually my post where I gone into serialization details is > a bit off. The whole matter is simply not relevant to this list. > > The only thing the client author should provide is serialization > hooks. When user asks to serialize the data, the client calls > serialize hook, and rises SERIALIZED flag. When some other client > sees SERIALIZED flag set, it calls deserialize hook before returning > the data to the user. And it's up to the user to use consistent > serialization methods.
Or identify the method used in the data itself. It's quite a reasonable approach, IMHO. > It works exactly this way for current (not all?) clients, the only > addition is that by default they set these hooks to serialization > library that comes with the language. But this doesn't mean that they > are fixed on a particular serialization method that we have to > standardize. > > Thus, if one knows a library (or wrote one himself) that may serialize > across different platforms, and has bindings (APIs) to languages in > question, the user would simply hook it into his clients, that's all. > So the question is whether there's such a library that binds to > sufficient number of languages? But that has nothing to do with the > clients themselves... We do not need to define our own serialization system, nor do we need to Choose The One True Serialization Encoding To Rule Them All (TM)-- we just need to allow for enough information to identify what the data is. Aaron
