Re: [boost] Boost.Log formal review upcoming

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Log formal review upcoming
From: Stewart, Robert (Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-02 06:56:04

Andrey Semashev wrote:
> On 03/01/2010 01:37 PM, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> >
> > 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.

This reply is disturbing.  I've seen some other replies from you in other contexts that suggest a similar attitude.  Maybe I'm reading too much into such replies, but they come off as, "If you think another library is so good, go take a good look and compare it with mine.  You'll come back to my library because it is clearly superior.  Stooping to such a task is beneath me."  I really hope that's not what you meant.

Thorsten's request is a good one.  Whether you compare your library to Pantheios or not, you should provide significant comparisons with several of the more popular logging libraries so that anyone considering Boost.Log, should it be accepted, will be able to make a quick decision in favor of Boost.Log.

> > It would also be good if you could use this library as one
> > to benchmark against.
>
> I have plans of wrapping up a test suite to benchmark
> Boost.Log against
> different libraries. Pantheois will be one of them.

This is excellent.

> > 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.

Any issue that contributed to Torjo's library being rejected could lead to yours being rejected as well.  You would do well to ensure success by researching that review.

> 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:

Here again is where you fail to grasp the point.  You know your library and you're trying to sell it to the rest of us and to future Boost users.  You should do this research and document the comparisons to answer not just Thorsten, but anyone else looking at your library.

I hope I've gotten your attitude wrong.  It wouldn't be the first time that the written word failed to communicate intention accurately.  I hope you will augment your documentation, ideally prior to the review period, with comparative details to help all who take the time to look at your library.  (I'm sure you'll get comments from folks about feature X of library Y during the review, which you can use to augment your initial comparison section.)

_____
Rob Stewart                           robert.stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer, Core Software      using std::disclaimer;
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  http://www.sig.com

IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.