Re: [boost] Review of Logging library is in progress

From: John Torjo (john.groups_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-02-13 13:58:48

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the positive review!
(just now, when I so got used to the negative ones :))

>
> Appears to meet many of the almost infinitely widely varying requirements.
>
> Many of the reviewers seem to be unwilling to vary their 'essential' requirements, but considering the possible permutations and
> combinations, I am unconvinced that their rejections should as absolute as they suggest.
>
>   
Thanks :)
>> * What is your evaluation of the implementation?
>>     
>
> Seems more complicated than I suspect it really is.
>
> Appears to permit use where efficiency is important.
>
>   
Oh yes!
> So I recommend presenting examples of how to use this package with 'pure' C++, as well as more slickly using macros. This will also
> help quiet the noisy Macrophobes ;-)
>
>   
As said, I will remove most of them. And one or two remaining - I'll 
make them optional.
> This is especially when example macros have inscrutable systemish names like L_.
>
>   
The only reason for the ending _ was that I wanted a very short name, 
and one letter seemed too short :)
> Surely it is worth suggesting use of three letters like LOG in an example?
>
>   
Will do.
> And the #define cries out for a comment line saying "you might like to define a macro that does ...)
>
> 'g_l' is not self-explanatory to me. 
>
>   
Got it, will use better naming.
> Could add_formatter be easier to write and read if add_formatter chained?
>
> (and this namespace information 
>
> using boost::logging::formatter::idx; // index - please!
>   
Yup, will change :)
> using boost::logging::formatter::append_newline;
>  ...
> provided in an .hpp)
>
> so it might read more like:
>
>     g_l()->writer()
>       .add_formatter(index() )
>       .add_formatter(append_newline() )
>       .add_formatter(tag::file_line() )
>       .add_formatter(tag::level() );
>
>   
Sure, not a problem!
>> * What is your evaluation of the documentation?
>>     
>
> Confusing.  Shows every sign of being written by someone who knows too much about it ;-)
>
> Much too chatty in places.
>
>   
Yup, got that - will update.
> The 1st examples are too difficult.
>
> (The later ones may be too easy - but I haven't got there yet ;-) )
>
>   
Will make them easier.

> Levels are not mentioned in the 'The Basics'.
>
>   
Will do.
>
>   
>> And finally, every review should answer this question:
>>
>> * Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
>>     
>
> Yes. This is a difficult task and this is good enough.
>
> And I think that we should try to get it into much wider real-life use before embarking on too much re-re-review.  The reviewers
> usage so far is far too thin, and probably unpresentative, to make detailed judgements.  I favor accepting this pretty much 'as is'
> but expecting some quite major revisions of documentation, and perhaps implementation.
>
>   
Thanks, will happen!

Best,
John

-- 
http://John.Torjo.com -- C++ expert
http://blog.torjo.com
... call me only if you want things done right