Uploaded image for project: 'Request For Comments'
  1. Request For Comments
  2. RFC-222

Remove most formatter and boost::serialization code

    Details

    • Type: RFC
    • Status: Implemented
    • Resolution: Done
    • Component/s: DM
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      AFW contains a fair amount of code designed to persist objects to text files using boost::serialization and daf::base::Persistable. These are no longer used, but we're still maintaining them (e.g. log updates on DM-6985), and we're still wasting time building them.

      We do still use this serialization approach for PropertySet and PropertyList. Eventually I think we should reimplement serialization for these as well (and remove the Formatter framework entirely), but I consider that out of scope for this RFC.

      For all classes in our codebase besides PropertySet and PropertyList, I propose that we remove boost::serialization support, remove any inheritance from daf::persistence::Peristable, and delete the corresponding Formatter classes.

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

            Hide
            ktl Kian-Tat Lim added a comment - - edited

            Still just a little bit away from YAML persistence of Property{Set,List}... But I think the Boost persistence will have to stay in for a while to read past outputs.

            But +1 on this.

            Show
            ktl Kian-Tat Lim added a comment - - edited Still just a little bit away from YAML persistence of Property{Set,List}... But I think the Boost persistence will have to stay in for a while to read past outputs. But +1 on this.
            Hide
            rowen Russell Owen added a comment -

            +1

            Show
            rowen Russell Owen added a comment - +1
            Hide
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment -

            Yay deleting unnecessary code!

            Show
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment - Yay deleting unnecessary code!
            Hide
            jbosch Jim Bosch added a comment -

            Implementation issue is DM-7667.

            Show
            jbosch Jim Bosch added a comment - Implementation issue is DM-7667 .
            Hide
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment -

            Jim Bosch what do you want to do with this RFC? Has it technically been implemented now? How does it relate to RFC-482?

            Show
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment - Jim Bosch what do you want to do with this RFC? Has it technically been implemented now? How does it relate to RFC-482 ?

              People

              • Assignee:
                jbosch Jim Bosch
                Reporter:
                jbosch Jim Bosch
                Watchers:
                Jim Bosch, John Parejko, John Swinbank, Kian-Tat Lim, Paul Price, Pim Schellart [X] (Inactive), Russell Owen, Tim Jenness
              • Votes:
                1 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                8 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:
                  Resolved:
                  Planned End: