From: Gennadiy Rozental [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am still considering aspects of your review. I have a questions about
a couple of comments:
Major [Issue 2]: I believe it design error to couple both sides of
serialization together in one library. It should be separated . So that user
should be able
Troyer
Sent: 26 November 2002 09:47
To: Boost mailing list
Subject: Re: [boost] Serialization library review
I was referring to one virtual function call for EVERY element in a
large vector as opposed to only one virtual function call for the
whole
vector.
Matthias
On Tuesday, November 26
* A serialization of bool is missing - easy to fix
I don't understand what you mean. basic_[i|o]archive contain:
Sorry, I missed that because it is separate from the other virtual
functions and not implemented in the b[io]archive class on which I
based my XDR implementation.
* The code
code fragments such as:
line 95-96 of archive.cpp seem unacceptable to me:
// note breaking a rule here - is this a problem on some platform
is.read(const_castchar *(s.data()), size);
Although is non standard I believe that the above code will work on all
known platforms.
It yields an
Date: 25 Nov 2002 00:03:08 -0500
From: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hmmm - what I don't understand is how this would be different that calling
void basic_oarchive::write_array(void* p, size_t count)
Incidently, this would work for any kind of archive - not just the
binary ones.
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:41:17 +0100
From: Matthias Troyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I guess this should be changed to:
#ifdef BOOST_HAS_MS_INT64
virtual basic_iarchive operator(int64_t _Val) = 0;
virtual basic_iarchive operator(uint64_t _Val) = 0;
#endif
#ifdef
On Tuesday, November 26, 2002, at 03:01 AM, Robert Ramey wrote:
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:41:17 +0100
From: Matthias Troyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I guess this should be changed to:
#ifdef BOOST_HAS_MS_INT64
virtual basic_iarchive operator(int64_t _Val) = 0;
virtual basic_iarchive
On Sunday, November 24, 2002, at 06:40 PM, Robert Ramey wrote:
5.5 Superfast I/O
There have been requests to add more primitive virtual functions to
basic_[i|o]archive in order to permit increased efficiency.
Specifically,
the idea is to add for each primitive type a virtual function to
On Sun, 2002-11-24 at 23:22, Robert Ramey wrote:
Hmmm - what I don't understand is how this would be different that calling
void basic_oarchive::write_array(void* p, size_t count)
Incidently, this would work for any kind of archive - not just the
binary ones.
But then the serialized data
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 16:28:50 +0100
From: Matthias Troyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
3. Does not work on all platforms - solvable problem
4. Interface design: there are some show-stoppers here for now
a) primitive types: code is not portable at the moment
b) performance: need improved methods
Robert,
posts where the quoted text you are replying to is only /sometimes/
preceded with '' are very hard to follow, and make the job of review
manager very difficult, since it becomes impossible to analyze the
discussion. Would you mind re-posting this with consistent quoting?
Robert Ramey
On Wednesday, November 20, 2002, at 01:42 PM, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
[Issue 3] Library seems to hardcode important part of functionality
that
users may want to overwrite. Here I refer in most part to
archive/object
preamble.
Major [Issue 3]: Submitted library is somewhat limited in a
At 10:46 PM 11/17/2002, Robert Ramey wrote:
I will be very curious to see timings on this. There is no apriori
reason
to know that the translation from native types - XDR is faster than
native types - text
I did a detailed timing study some years ago. Binary was four times faster
round trip
At 04:08 AM 11/17/2002, Matthias Troyer wrote:
On Sunday, November 17, 2002, at 05:43 AM, David Abrahams wrote:
Does anybody else feel they need more time to give this library a
thorough going-over? I think we could afford to extend the review for
a few more days. I would especially be
From: Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 04:08 AM 11/17/2002, Matthias Troyer wrote:
On Sunday, November 17, 2002, at 05:43 AM, David Abrahams wrote:
Does anybody else feel they need more time to give this library a
thorough going-over? I think we could afford to extend the review for
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 09:07:40AM -0500, David Abrahams wrote:
In this system, we use term serialization to mean a system where
the current state of group of objects can be stored to a permanent
medium that may outlast the current program execution. At any later
time an equivalent
16 matches
Mail list logo
