Subject: Re: [boost] Shouldn't both logging proposals be reviewed in the same formal review?
From: Markus Werle (numerical.simulation_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-18 04:41:54
Vladimir Batov <vladimir.batov <at> wrsa.com.au> writes:
> [...] there should be only one boost::log library.
I do not agree here.
We have boost::bind, fusion::bind and lambda::bind AND proto (the solution to
everything). We have regexp AND xpresive. We have several xml parsers (in
serialization and in spirit). We have spirit1 and spirit2x.
I used them all and of course I look forward to having one single library that
fits all of my needs. But that is extra effort again. And logging *is* a big
So maybe we could deliberately choose to play country AND western this time
(Sorry I could not help it: just enjoyed watching that movie on sunday again).
Seriously: Sometimes it is hard to see which library wins. And as I proposed
some years ago: What we definitely need is a ranking of libraries by quality
If both libraries fulfill the high quality measures of boost, let us include
both and then see what the market says, probably also aiming at merging both
over the years.
Of course I'd prefer this to be done *before* inclusion. But for logging I'd
propose to be realistic. Only after intensive use we will find all the odds.
And: I'd prefer 2 boost libraries of the same kind over none.
> Having two separate reviews puts those libraries on uneven footing which is
> unfair and detrimental to the ultimate outcome.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk