Re: [boost] Proposed Logging Library review

From: John Torjo (john.groups_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-02-11 17:22:06

>> 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.
>
>   
Thinking over the feedback I got, what I want is another review in 3.5 
months.
Most requests are not that complex to achieve - it's just that I don't 
have time to do them right away.
> 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.
>
>   
Tell me 'bout it ;)

> 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.
>
>   
Yup, couldn't agree more ;)
> Thanks John for all your efforts. Good luck with the review.
>
>   
Thanks, see you at the next review ;)

Best,
John

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