Re: [boost] [log] Release Candidate 4 released

Subject: Re: [boost] [log] Release Candidate 4 released
From: OvermindDL1 (overminddl1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-01-08 20:45:19

On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Andrey Semashev
<andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 01/08/2010 08:05 PM, Christian Holmquist wrote:
>
>> One thing that I miss from the documentation are performance numbers and
>> guides, I think this is a sensitive issue that should be given its own
>> section. By reading the code samples I get some performance concerns only
>> because the code looks 'potentially expensive' (named_scopes, for
>> instance),
>> having the documentation telling me I should not worry together with some
>> tests I could compile and run would elimante such concerns, and spare
>> users
>> like myself some time in doing their own (possibly faulty) performance
>> analysis.
>> Besides this, the documentation I find the documentation good and easy to
>> follow.
>
> Yes, I intend to add this section to the docs later. There has been some
> performance testing with comparison to log4cxx. You may find interesting the
> discussion in this forum thread:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ya85vwf
>
>> Edit:
>> I just found the performance folder in libs/test/, maybe it'll tell me
>> something.
>
> This is a half-baked test that I used to measure performance of different
> sink frontends.

I would love a comparison between this and Apache's logging framework,
in benchmarking speeds, features, coding method, and output formats
(with apache's default methods since you can plug in your own into
it).