From: Tom Brinkman (reportbase_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-02-10 19:59:54
* What is your evaluation of the design?
Introduces alot of new concepts for something relatively simple, logging. A
study of the headers suggests a boostified functional style, but with lots
which some developers here have no objection over. I on the other hand
would like to see less, or even no macros in the public interface. A
functional, lambda style
logging interface should be adequate. If a macro is needed, suggest it as a
but dont force it on the user in the example(s).
* What is your evaluation of the implementation?
No issues. Author appears to be knowlegable in the problem domain.
* What is your evaluation of the documentation?
Overall, I didnt like the informal style, but I was able to get the
information I needed.
Author tries to be too "cute" or "friendly". Author should get rid of
and replace them with more professional language.
An example of informal language is:
"Yup, we have other examples as well. We also have a starter project."
* What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
Potential is high. Would I use this library. As it stands, no. The
still suggest to me that logging requirements are too application specific,
this library doesnt change that equation. If it had a simple, boostified,
interface, with no macros, and no learning curve, I would probably use it.
As it stands, its too complicated, with too little benefit for me to us it.
* Did you try to use the library? With what compiler?
Did you have any problems?
It compiled on GCC, linux, ubuntu, with some warnings, which I ignored.
* How much effort did you put into your evaluation?
* Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
* Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
I would evaluate it again, if the author would
create a more boost friendly, lambda style public interface.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk