Re: Implementing Object persistence
Re: Implementing Object persistence
- Subject: Re: Implementing Object persistence
- From: Will Mason <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 11:18:46 -0800 (PST)
- Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
> OTOH, if you need an extensible and future-safe archiving format,
> NSKeyedArchiver is the better option. NSArchiver doesn't really work
> too well with changing requirements. E.g. if you need to add new
> fields to your objects, you have to account for that manually with
> NSArchiver, while NSKeyedArchiver will just ignore keys you don't
> request, and give you NIL on keys that aren't there.
I agree that NSKeyedArchiver is better for small archives where
performance is not an issue for exactly the reasons that you cite
above. However, I do believe that the advantages of keyed archives are
exaggerated in the documentation, while the disadvantages of them are
not mentioned at all. That's a bit weird. Also, Java has been using
(very heavily) a serialization protocol very similar to non-keyed
archives for years, and it's not wreaking irrevocable havoc on people's
ability to serialize object graphs. They have specific rules for
preserving the ability to serialize/deserialize objects across
versions, and it appears to work quite well. I guess my point is that I
feel that keyed archives are somewhat oversold in the documentation and
I don't understand why. I would be interested to hear testimonials
about how great they are, rather than simply the assertions of their
superiority that we read in the documentation.
Will
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden