Re: [Boost-users] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MPI] missing symbols using serialization's static library design

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Robert Ramey wrote:

Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:

...

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Robert Ramey wrote:

"Barrett, Brian W" wrote in message news:<69A29AB53D57F54D81061A9E4E45B8FD239CC111@EXMB01.srn.sandia.gov>...

...

On 10/17/12 1:00 PM, "Robert Ramey" wrote:

...

Barrett, Brian W wrote:

...

...

Unfortunately, I'm barely competent in using Boost.MPI and Boost.Serialization. I'm definitely not in a position to be able to apply a patch.

What I'm getting from your responses and the general silence elsewhere is that the right answer is to deal with the incompatibilities between versions of Boost and explicitly instantiate all the internal MPI archivers and hope for the best. It's a little painful, but I think we can do that.

Well, your organization could contract with me to address this for you.

I've done special work for several companies which use the serialization library. This work has been contributed to boost and become part of the distributed package. So

a) The organization gets what it needs for a reasonable cost. b) Any generally useful enhancements get included in the library

So it helps everyone all around.

Thanks in advance for considering this.

I'm not at all versed (let alone well-versed) in either Boost.Serialization nor Boost.MPI, so I am not sure what Brian's issue exactly is, but I'm curious, Robert, if you acknowledge this as an issue? It seems strange to require a user to fiddle with stuff in the detail namespace of a library.

I don't doubt it's an issue. Note that I didn't write the MPI serilializat and in fact have never even glanced at it.

Ah, okay. Fair enough. And I suppose to don't really have any Boost.MPI experts/maintainers lurking...? Brian, it sounds like at a minimum you should file a trac ticket against Boost.MPI (if one does not already exist), so at least the issue is recorded.

Also, and I mean this with the best of intentions, but your

...

(Robert's) response here could be construed as...unhelpful, and I'm taking specific aim at the parting sarcasm. If you don't have the time and/or resources to address this or some other issue, I think stating so is sufficient.

This is a an email blunder on my part. I meant to send this as a private message but I guess I pressed the wrong button. There was / is no sarcasm intended. This is a serious proposal.. For several companies, I have made special enhancements to the serialization library. Most of these ended up as part of the library. One case in particular was work on the portable_binary?iarchive.

[...] This is fine, and it's occasionally difficult to evaluate tone in an email. That's all. - Jeff