Re: [boost] Shouldn't both logging proposals be reviewed in the same formal review?

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 
thing.

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 
vote.

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.

Agreed. 

Markus