From: Paul Baxter (pauljbaxter_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-02-11 13:04:05
From: "Amit" <contact.lipik_at_[hidden]>
>> * What is your evaluation of the design?
> I think the library is overdesigned, learning curve is too shallow & very
> difficult to comprehend for a casual user.
>> * What is your evaluation of the implementation?
> Unwieldy & too reliant on preprocessor macros. Namespaces are over-used.
> important considerations have been overlooked
>> * What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
> I think that with a simplified design, discarding of maybe 25 out of the
> namespaces used, automatic defaults for typical tasks, no reliance on
> this would be a very useful library for almost all C++ developers.
>> And finally, every review should answer this question:
>> * Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
> Not in its current form.
Though I've only summarised certain aspects of Amit's review and will not be
offering a full review of my own, I wanted to agree wholeheartedly with his
critique. Thanks Amit.
However, without trying to judge or prejudice the outcome of the review, I
hope there is a way forward from here that doesn't outright reject a library
that clearly has a huge number of positives.
The world of logging is so diverse, its almost impossible to satisfy all
aims simultaneously in elegant code. Usability and shallow learning curve,
run-time optimisations, flexibility, modularity, extended use cases.
If anything, I think the current submission is spreading itself too thin and
I for one would love to see a consensus on a core set of capabilities
defined with the value of John's experience in knowing how extending the
core to a wider set of use cases would affect the core.
Is it mainly a case that some syntactic sugar is needed to spruce up the way
the logging library works. Its aims and capabilities seem invaluable even if
the interface to them isn't quite right yet.
Without trying to draw too close a parallel, Boost lost a great asset when
Chris Diggins ( http://cdiggins.com/category/cpp/ ) decided 'the boost way'
wasn't for him any more and I see the energy, enthusiasm and quality of
John's work in a similar vein. I don't know John but I have a great deal of
admiration for the can-do spirit.
Thanks John for all your efforts. Good luck with the review.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk