Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Log formal review upcoming
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-01 11:25:47
On 03/01/2010 01:37 PM, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> Hi Andrey,
> I looked at the documentation, and couldn't find any comparison with
> other libraries besides a small log4j comparison. Therefore I wonder
> if such a comparison has been made, and if so, how it guided the design
> In particular, I would like to see a quite detailed comparison with
There was no complete feature-wise comparison between them, but I think
you can figure it out from the docs of the libraries.
> It would also be good if you could use this library as one to benchmark
I have plans of wrapping up a test suite to benchmark Boost.Log against
different libraries. Pantheois will be one of them.
> I would also like to know how your library differs from the one that was
> rejected by John Torjo, and how your library adresses the issue that was
> found with that library?
Actually, there's really not much in common between them. The most
striking difference that you may notice is decoupling of loggers and
sinks. Also, Boost.Log uses attributes to perform filtering and
formatting of log records, which is something that was missing in John's
If you have a particular issue on your mind, please, specify. I'll try
to answer more specifically.
If you're familiar with John's library or Pantheois, it might be worth
to take a look at Boost.Log design description to grasp the difference:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk