Re: [boost] thoughts on logging library: orthogonal runtime configuration

From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-09 18:32:45

AMDG

brass goowy wrote:
>
> This is a good example of the need for compilers that output the code they 
> generate based on templates.  If they did that, the library writer could 
> have an online service that spits out the final deliverable rather than 
> users having to maintain different versions of a library.

I don't understand the advantage over preprocessor configuration.
I don't really want to have to have a separate boost distribution
every time I want a different configuration.

>   It is a slow 
> and error prone process to rebuild a library/application as suggested here.
> Alternatively, service providers would have logging versions of their code available
> for users in the field, in effect eliminating the long and unproductive process of 
> a rebuild.

How is this any better than just providing pre-built binaries.
Unless different configurations are ABI compatible, switching
configurations requires a re-build of all user code that
depends on the library regardless of how the configuration is
managed.

>    Because the code is built by the service provider rather than less 
> experienced users, configuration confusion is mitigated.  As the needs here are 
> pressing,  we hope the problems with the status quo will be addressed sooner 
> than later.
>   

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe