Re: [boost] A meta-proposal for logging

From: JD (jean.daniel.michaud_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-04 15:06:06

> The author of Pantheios (http://pantheios.sourceforge.net) seems to
> think he really does know what it is, and has found the "sweet spot."
> I have no opinion about whether he's right or not, but it would be a
> good idea for someone who's familiar with the recent Boost discussion
> to review his work before proceeding too much further.
> 

Thanks David for your advice.
So here is some stuff I read from the documentation (.chm):

- "Pantheios is written in C and C++, and presents a C API along with a 
C++ Application Layer API."

        Is it a problem?

- "Pantheios is released under the BSD license"

        Is it a problem?

- "Pantheios is dependent on the STLSoft libraries, version 1.9.1 beta 
20, or later.

STLSoft provides the following important features:

-Compiler feature discrimination, standard library feature 
discrimination, memory utility classes, multi-threading classes and 
functions, various TL extension algorithms and iterator adaptors.
-The application layer uses the string access shims defined by the 
STLSoft main project and several sub-projects to effect the genericity, 
100% type-safety and zero-overhead when not logging.
-The core completely avoids memory allocation when the total extent of a 
logged message is less than 2048 bytes by using the highly efficient 
stlsoft::auto_buffer component.
-Several stock back ends use STLSoft components for their implementation."

        Is it a problem?

- Wow!! : http://minilien.com/?JXY4zQCudk

I am not an expert in design and in no position in rejecting any library 
  or whatever, and I have actually not even look into the code but IMO, 
just as reading few pages of the doc, I think pantheios is not what we 
are looking for. I would love to be wrong and that someone says, 
"pantheios is what we were looking for all those years, let put it into 
boost". I doubt it...

Please, someone more experienced have a quick look and tell me I'm wrong.

Thanks.

JD