Re: [boost] Boost.Log formal review upcoming

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Log formal review upcoming
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-02 11:11:07

In order to give a cumulative answer, I reordered some parts of the 
original letter. I hope this doesn't confuse anyone.

On 03/02/2010 02:56 PM, Stewart, Robert wrote:
>>
>> 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.

 >> 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.)

Robert, I will try to clarify my point. My answer may sound a bit harsh, 
but believe me, there is no such intent.

I'm not selling anything. I'm not trying to bend anyone's opinion with 
marketing speeches and shiny brochures. I'm not trying to push anything 
unworthy (from my point of view) into Boost by these moves. I'm glad I'm 
not a salesman who has to do that to earn his living.

My sincere belief is that a best choice is made based on facts that one 
learned himself first hand. I believe, most people here are experienced 
enough to have an idea of logging and, perhaps, some of the mentioned 
libraries. Therefore, the best way to form opinion of Boost.Log is to 
see what it's capable of, what are the advantages, and what are the 
drawbacks in context of one's typical usage pattern. In other words, 
read the docs and examples and evaluate the library. The choice is 
always yours.

I'm not refusing people with experience of using other libraries. On the 
contrary, I'm open to questions like "how do I do that thing" or "is it 
possible to do this thing" or whatever helps to understand the library 
and simplify its adoption. I'm also open to suggestions for the library 
improvement. But I'm not advertising anything, sorry. It is what it is.

You may ask, why do I bring the library to Boost then? The answer will 
be this. I believe, Boost is lacking a logging tool. I think, logging is 
a very much awaited addition to Boost, as I've been waiting for it too 
some time ago. I think, that the proposed Boost.Log will help Boost 
users in this area and thus I'm willing to try to bring it in. This 
review should show, whether my beliefs have their ground.

I hope this kind of attitude is good enough for the review to happen.

> 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.

Like I said, I'm open to questions that help adoption of the library. 
Maybe some time I'll get tired of such questions and write a FAQ or a 
section in docs, covering the most frequent of them.

> 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.

I participated that review, so I have a basic idea. But I'll rehearse 
it, thanks for the suggestion.