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: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-19 13:36:12

Vladimir Batov wrote:
>> Scott McMurray <me22.ca+boost <at> gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> As they undoubtedly took different approaches, I think trying to ask
>> them to pick one would be unreasonable.  The review process ought to
>> do a much better job with each evangelizing their preferred approach.
> 
> Yes, I understand and unfortunately such a development is not that uncommon. I
> was just hoping it might be possible to raise above mine-vs-not-mine stand-off
> and to achieve something in collaboration rather than in an elimination fight.
> To me both approaches are not that different from the user perspective (I admit
> only glancing over the functionalities and interfaces) given that the functional
> set for a logging library is pretty well defined. Like sinks management,
> formatting management, hierarchical streams, etc. I believe both libraries are
> quite similar in that regard from the user perspective. Obviously, I can easily
> get this wrong. However, I suspect when the authors submit their comparison
> summaries, the functionality lists will be 90% overlapping.

While from the user's perspective the libraries may look similar, the 
internal architecture may differ significantly. One wins in one case, 
the other wins in another case. Some features may just not fit well in 
the foreign library or just may not be needed. Therefore it's quite 
difficult to produce a combined solution. In such cases, given the two 
libraries satisfy the acception criteria, I think both libraries may be 
included into Boost.