Boost logo

Boost :

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:
>> 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

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