Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Log formal review upcoming
From: Thorsten Ottosen (thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-01 15:18:50
Andrey Semashev skrev:
> 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.
Well, if I do a review, I will do that. However, you know your own
library better than any. So *your* comparison would be a great starting
point. Also, I think it is in general desireable that you can argue why
your library is better or equally good compared to others; if not, then
why should anybody use it (*)?
>> 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.
I don't because I haven't followed that review and the decision to
reject. However, it makes little sense to re-review the same problems.
Therefore I strongly suggest that you make sure these issues have been
addresses or that they don't apply to your library.
(*) Andrey, your work looks very good and impressive, so don't take my
comments too negative. Take them as something that could improve your
library. Whenever one publishes a scientic paper, it is costumary to
review earlier results and explan why your own results are
better/different; if not, you won't get it published.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk