On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 23:27 -0400, Ian Eslick wrote: > Actually I wouldn't do that quite yet. If we're going to be putting > things into the C world via BDB, then we should keep the serializer > that is efficient at doing that! >
Well, if we're willing to have type-specific serializers, I don't know why we couldn't use back-end specific serializers as well, and leave what we have in place for BDB. >However, I suspect that postmodern, CL-SQL and the lisp backend would >all benefit from a lisp serializer that serialized lisp objects into >lisp byte arrays. Today we serialize a lisp object into a buffer- >stream, then copy the buffer stream back into a lisp array, then write >it out via postmodern or CL-SQL's interface which, for CL-SQL, then >copies it into a base 64 text string... Right. And the only good reason to retain the Cl-SQL backend, given the superiority of the postmodern one, and the fact that postmodern doesn't base64 encode things, is to support SQlite3. But of course, if we had a pure-lisp backend, one of the incentives to support SQLite3 would go away. _______________________________________________ elephant-devel site list elephant-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/elephant-devel
