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

Subject: Re: [boost] [log] Boost.Log formal review
From: Dmitry Goncharov (dgoncharov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-12 05:15:43

Barend Gehrels wrote:
>
>
> Dmitry Goncharov wrote:
>> 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...
Here, i cannot really see reasons not to use a library which requires 
linking.

> There are much more people using only header-only Boost headers.
The same as above.
>
> 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.
If an existing header-only library starts using the Boost.Log library 
we'll need to update the makefiles.
This is a reasonable cost. In reward we won't need to compile the 
Boost.Log lib over and over again.

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

BR, Dmitry