Re: [boost] Boost.Log formal review upcoming

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
>> decisions.
>>
>> In particular, I would like to see a quite detailed comparison with
>> Pantheios:
>>
>> http://www.pantheios.org/
> 
> 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
>> against.

Good.

> 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 
> proposal.
> 
> 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.

-Thorsten

(*) 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.