On 2 Sep 2013, at 12:47 AM, Marcel Weiher wrote:
> This gets (mis-)quoted out of context way too much (my emphasis):
>
> "We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time:
> premature optimization is the root of all evil”
>
> It goes on as follows:
>
> "Yet we should
On Sep 1, 2013, at 18:26 , Uli Kusterer wrote:
> Honestly, I wouldn’t use non-keyed archiving anymore these days. Either you
> need performance so badly that you create your own file format (or use
> something specialized for a particular need, like sqlite), or you use keyed
> archiving. It’s
On 01/09/2013, at 5:07 PM, Marcel Weiher wrote:
> Well, archiving in general is pretty convenient, I am just trying to figure
> out how significant the benefits of keyed archiving are in particular (as
> compared to, for example, old style archiving). If you’re on iOS you don’t
> have a choi
On Sep 1, 2013, at 17:07, Marcel Weiher wrote:
> Well, archiving in general is pretty convenient, I am just trying to figure
> out how significant the benefits of keyed archiving are in particular (as
> compared to, for example, old style archiving). If you’re on iOS you don’t
> have a choice,
I use keyed coding with defaults to solve this issue, keys never change meaning
after definition, app should ignore non-recognised keys and missing keys are
defaulted or inferred from existing ones.
On Sep 1, 2013, at 23:07, Marcel Weiher wrote:
> Hi Graham,
>
> thanks for sharing your experi
Hi Graham,
thanks for sharing your experience, that’s really helpful!
On Sep 1, 2013, at 11:54 , Graham Cox wrote:
> On 31/08/2013, at 6:48 PM, Marcel Weiher wrote:
>> So you’ve had good practical experience with forward/backward compatible
>> designs?
>
> Yes.
>
> But let me qualify it :) B
On 31/08/2013, at 6:48 PM, Marcel Weiher wrote:
>
> On Aug 29, 2013, at 11:54 , Graham Cox wrote:
>
>>
>>> So the whole automagic forward/backward compatibility that we’re supposed
>>> to get with keyed archives doesn’t actually pan out. If you want
>>> compatibility, you have to plan and
On 29/08/2013, at 10:35 AM, Marcel Weiher wrote:
>> Also, if you add a new class, the old application won't be able to
>> de-serialize it from a keyed archiver.
>
> Hadn’t thought of that one! Er…I meant to say “completely obvious!!"
You can plan ahead for this eventuality though. A keyed (
Hi Uli,
thanks for your in-depth response!
On Aug 28, 2013, at 20:38 , Uli Kusterer wrote:
> On Aug 28, 2013, at 4:53 PM, Marcel Weiher wrote:
>> does anyone have practical experience with the forward/backward
>> compatibility aspect of keyed archiving? That is define a file format using
>>
On Aug 28, 2013, at 4:53 PM, Marcel Weiher wrote:
> does anyone have practical experience with the forward/backward compatibility
> aspect of keyed archiving? That is define a file format using keyed
> archiving where backward and forward compatibility was both desirable and
> achieved?
Hi,
On Aug 28, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Marcel Weiher wrote:
> does anyone have practical experience with the forward/backward compatibility
> aspect of keyed archiving? That is define a file format using keyed
> archiving where backward and forward compatibility was both desirable and
> achieved?
Do yo
Hi folks,
does anyone have practical experience with the forward/backward compatibility
aspect of keyed archiving? That is define a file format using keyed archiving
where backward and forward compatibility was both desirable and achieved?
Thanks!
Marcel
12 matches
Mail list logo
