English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
Marshalling question
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2010-10-12 (09:48)
From: Alexey Rodriguez <mrchebas@g...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Marshalling question
Julien, Mathias,

Thanks for the detailed description of this issue.

Mathias, we use the same solution: concrete graphs and explicit
identifiers so we do not suffer from the deserialization issue. Good
to know about the pitfalls of abstract graphs though.



On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Julien Signoles
<julien.signoles@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/10/12 Mathias Kende <mathias@kende.fr>
>> To represent "abstract" graphs (those were the
>> equality for the nodes type is not used to check if two nodes of a graph
>> are the same), the library uses an internal counter. This counter must
>> be serialised along with the graphs and then it must be updated
>> correctly when graphs are unserialised to avoid creating a node with the
>> same identifier than o node in the unserialised graphs.
>> This is explained in the FAQ :
>> http://ocamlgraph.lri.fr/FAQ
> I didn't remember myself that the OcamlGraph FAQ contains a section about
> that ;-).
>> But I bielieve that the FAQ got it wrong in case multiple graphs are
>> unserialised, or nodes are created before the unserialisation of other
>> nodes. In these situation using concrete graphs, which do not suffer
>> from this problem, is certainly easier (as advertised by the manual).
>> And I manually add identifiers to the nodes if I need many nodes with
>> the same label.
> Of course you're right (see also my own answer to Alexey) : I will update
> the OcamlGraph FAQ accordingly.
> Thanks,
> Julien