Re: [boost] [log] Boost.Log formal review

Subject: Re: [boost] [log] Boost.Log formal review
From: strasser_at_[hidden]
Date: 2010-03-08 13:22:53

Zitat von Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]>:

>> http_connection_requested record(host,port);
>>
>> stream.sputc( get_record_identity(record) );
>> stream.sputn( &record, sizeof(record) );
>>
>> (assuming that the record is bitwise-serializable)
>
> That assumption may be true in your particular case. But it's  
> absolutely no go in a generic library, which Boost.Log is. In fact,  
> even in more specialized cases I tend to reject such code.

well, there are ways of serialization other than bitwise, this was  
example code only.
my point was that for those use cases the logging sink must have  
access to the attribute _values_ without expensive intermediate steps  
like storing them in a dynamically allocated tree indexed by a string.

but I realize that this is a very specialized case of logging, and I  
see no problem with handling it in a seperate library (most likely  
Boost.Transact).

IF you wanted to support that case we should have incorporated it.

I'll submit a review of your library without regard to this use case.