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

Subject: Re: [boost] [log] Boost.Log formal review
From: Barend Gehrels (barend_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-12 05:00:31

Dmitry Goncharov wrote:
>
>
> Barend Gehrels wrote:
>>
>>
>> Andrey Semashev wrote:
>>> No, the library has to be compiled anyway. However, if your 
>>> application is a single .exe module, you can link statically with 
>>> Boost.Log and other libraries.
>>
>> OK, I must say that I'm not so happy with that. What is the reason 
>> for the need to compile? Logging is very useful, but to statically 
>> link only because of logging is in many cases not convenient.
> There was a report that it had taken about 20 minutes to compile the 
> lib. Do you really want to spend 20 minutes each time you compile an 
> application which uses the lib? Or would you rather compile the lib 
> once and then link against it?
That also sounds not good.

However, what might happen is that if there is an attractive logging 
library, Boost library writers start to use it, of course. All libraries 
using the logging functionality will need compilation. I normally use 
only header only libraries from Boost (sometimes making an exception). 
So this scenario might cause me stopping using Boost... There are much 
more people using only header-only Boost headers.

It might be even worse. If *existing* libraries will start using 
Boost.Log in an update (because it is really useful), existing project 
files and solutions will be broken.

And finally for me the worst case scenario: if *existing *libraries 
*used in Boost.Geometry* will start using Boost.Log in an update, our 
Boost.Geometry library is broken and not header only anymore.

That is the reason that I'm really not happy with this, and I think it 
should be fixed.

Regards, Barend