Boost C++ Libraries: Ticket #6261: Missing uuid_io.hpp in uuid_serialize.hpp https://svn.boost.org/trac10/ticket/6261 <p> Probably it is not a bug, but my misunderstanding the conception. </p> <p> Suppose we want to serialize uuid using boost::serialization library through text_[io]archive. If we include only uuid_serialize.hpp and uuid.hpp headers we will get "strange" (particularly for me) compilation error. I found out that the error was omission uuid_io.hpp header: archive class uses iostream operations for serialization. </p> <p> So the question will be: is it correct to not include uuid_io.hpp into uuid_serialize.hpp header? </p> <p> Thank you. </p> en-us Boost C++ Libraries /htdocs/site/boost.png https://svn.boost.org/trac10/ticket/6261 Trac 1.4.3 Andy Tompkins Sat, 17 Dec 2011 02:20:50 GMT <link>https://svn.boost.org/trac10/ticket/6261#comment:1 </link> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://svn.boost.org/trac10/ticket/6261#comment:1</guid> <description> <p> Hmm, I understand what you are saying. Normally the serialization library would use specific functions written for a class. I do not believe that uuid_io.hpp is needed when using a binary archive.<br /> I wanted to make uuid a primitive, i.e. BOOST_CLASS_IMPLEMENTATION(uuid, boost::serialization::primitive_type) (see <a href="http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_48_0/libs/serialization/doc/index.html">http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_48_0/libs/serialization/doc/index.html</a>). I now wonder if this may have been a bad decision. Or maybe I should have done it via boost::serialization::is_bitwise_serializable. My goal was to use only 16 bytes when serializing to a binary archive. </p> </description> <category>Ticket</category> </item> <item> <author>James E. King, III <jking@…></author> <pubDate>Fri, 04 Aug 2017 12:28:13 GMT</pubDate> <title/> <link>https://svn.boost.org/trac10/ticket/6261#comment:2 </link> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://svn.boost.org/trac10/ticket/6261#comment:2</guid> <description> <p> Given this has been open for 6 years and there have been no further comments, I would recommend closing this as "No Plan to Fix" or "Invalid". </p> </description> <category>Ticket</category> </item> <item> <dc:creator>James E. King, III</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 12 Aug 2017 23:27:28 GMT</pubDate> <title>owner changed https://svn.boost.org/trac10/ticket/6261#comment:3 https://svn.boost.org/trac10/ticket/6261#comment:3 <ul> <li><strong>owner</strong> changed from <span class="trac-author">Andy Tompkins</span> to <span class="trac-author">James E. King, III</span> </li> </ul> Ticket James E. King, III Sat, 12 Aug 2017 23:27:38 GMT status changed; resolution set https://svn.boost.org/trac10/ticket/6261#comment:4 https://svn.boost.org/trac10/ticket/6261#comment:4 <ul> <li><strong>status</strong> <span class="trac-field-old">new</span> → <span class="trac-field-new">closed</span> </li> <li><strong>resolution</strong> → <span class="trac-field-new">wontfix</span> </li> </ul> Ticket