[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: RE: Pluto updated
- From: "Grisha" <grisha@...>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:03:55 +0400
I don't clearly understand your idea with 'magic number', can you explain it
in more detail?
With further thought, I think we can live without that "__lowlevelpersist"
function. Just send a (void *ud) pointer into "__persist" and "__unpersist",
so we can register those userdatas for saving/loading in our C-side
serializer. They will get serialized completely out of Pluto scope then.
This also has additional stability value: if you will opt for one-step
approach in the future, you will just send reader/writer there too, no other
interface changes will be needed.
----- Original Message -----
From: "benjamin sunshine-hill" <email@example.com>
To: "Lua list" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 11:20 PM
Subject: Re: RE: Pluto updated
> Alright. When you're able, I'd like to get your input on how to determine
when to invoke an unpersist-lowlevel function. Perhaps a "magic number" gets
serialized, nonzero for low-level special persistence, and that number is
passed to a user-defined dispatch function?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Grisha <email@example.com>
> Date: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 12:10 pm
> Subject: Re: RE: Pluto updated
> > Hi, Ben
> > I understand your concerns with one-step approach (file format &
> > your code), and ofcourse it's only your decision on how to actually do
> > thing. I can't find any better solution than your "__persistlowlevel"
> > function if we are using two-step approach, and though I'd prefer to
> > with as few functions as possible, it will work fine for us.
> > It's already pretty late here in Moscow, so I'm leaving this discussion
> > tommorrow.
> > Best Regards,
> > Grisha