Re: [boost] My pseudo review of Logging library

From: John Torjo (john.groups_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-02-11 17:38:05

Hi Loïc,

Thanks for the review.
>
>> * What is your evaluation of the design?
>>   
>>     
> It seems to be a little bit too raw to be usable by the unwary user.
> Some eviewers have complained about the use of macro. Loggoing is IMO 
> one of the few places where macro usage is a good thing. There are some
I do agree, I did probably use too many macros though... Anyway, will do 
my best to remove most of them
>  
>
>   
> The learning curve is too steep. Is it the fault of the documentation or 
> of the library ? I do not know.
>   
A bit of both :) Will fix.
>
>> And finally, every review should answer this question:
>>
>> * Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library
>>     
> I would like to agree with other reviewers: Logging is so vast a project 
> that anyone want it own special options that fit its particular needs. I 
> think the review of the previous version of the library suffered the 
> same problem. This has led John Torjo to write the swiss army knife of 
> logging, and still, some people miss miss some options... My opinion is 
>   
Exactly :)
v1 - simple , not flexible enough
v2 - very flexible, but not simple enough
> that a logging library is so much needed that I do not really care if it 
> is not perfect, as long as it is usable & extendable.
>
> What I miss most is simplicity. I would really appreciate is a basig 
> logging configuration was provided for a quickstart. By basic, I mean 
> something that allow code such a this :
> - Log onto a file
> - Set the log level (at compile time or at run time)
> - Log using  iostream syntax
> - Initialization should be a one-liner in user code.
>   
Basically I added this after the review started - the 
boost/logging/out_of_the_box directory.
> It can allow more, but the one-liner stuff is important.
>
>   
Seems so :)

> I don't knows if there if a fast track second chance review process for 
> a library. If there is one, I think it would be better to wait a few 
> weeks and have another review. Otherwise, I vote yes, knowing this 
> library will probably evolve anyway after the many remarks done during 
> the review.
>
>   
Thanks!

Best,
John

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