Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [log] Review-ready version in the Vault
From: Boris Schaeling (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-09 15:02:53

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:21:13 +0100, <Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden]> wrote:


> [...]Firstly, it certainly seems very rich in features and configurable.
> That
> is certainly a huge plus for such a library as logging. However, I was
> truly overwhelmed by the documentation, the interface and the deployment
> examples. I seemed to be reading about familiar concepts -- severity
> levels, sinks, filters, formatters, streams/channels. However, after all
> that I did not feel an inch closer to actually deploying your library. I

If I had to explain Andrey's logging library in one sentence: The logger
object routes messages to sinks based on attributes and their values.

> consider myself a moderately intelligent person but the seeming
> complexity
> felt quite intimidating. Somehow other implementations I read about
> (J.Torjo's, log4cpp, log4j, a bunch of loggers at SourceForge) went down
> much easier.

 From what I understand it would help you if the documentation contained a
small comparison between Andrey's library and some other well-known
logging libraries? I ask as in my opinion the documentation is one of the
better ones of the Boost C++ libraries.

I had also been using J.Torjo's logging library before I switched to
Andrey's. Comparing the two libraries I like Andrey's more as the concepts
Andrey's library is based on seem to be an added value. In J.Torjo's
library a logger is like a stream: When you pass a message to a logger you
know where it will be written to. As that is something I can do with
standard streams, too, I actually expect from a logging library to
introduce new concepts.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at