Subject: Re: [boost] [log] Boost.Log formal review result
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-25 13:27:15
Andrey Semashev wrote:
> On 03/25/2010 01:28 AM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> First of all, I would like to thank Andrey for this submission and the
>> active discussion during the review. I also would like to thank everybody
>> who participated in the review.
>> The comments on the library were generally positive. Several reviewers
>> have tried it in practical projects already, and found it superior to
>> other libraries. It clearly will benefit the users of Boost right away.
>> Therefore, the library is accepted. Congratulations, Andrey!
> Thank you, Vladimir. You did a really great job both as a review manager
> and as a reviewer.
> I would also like to thank all the reviewers, I needed this kind of
> feedback. My special appreciation goes to Steven Watanabe, who gave
> thorough reading to the documentation and provided the needed
> corrections, and also gave many fruitful suggestions about the code.
> I agree to most prerequisites needed for the final inclusion, with a
> sole exception of this one:
>> Critical issues
>> These issues must be addressed, and be passed through informal mini-review,
>> before the library can be added to SVN.
>> - The library should not reinvent wheels. In particular, custom implementations
>> of TSS and RW mutex seems like a very bad idea.
> I have noted that during the review that these tools were implemented
> for a reason. They make the library faster and lighter in terms of
> memory footprint. They allow to avoid including Boost.Thread headers in
> public headers of Boost.Log, which also speeds up the compilation. I
> think these matters are more important than having the code dispersion
> they add.
> I remember that it was you who expressed the concern about these tools.
> Do you think this issue should really be a hard requirement for the
> library to be included in Boost?
I don't think it's hard requirement to have Boost.Log use specific current
implementation of TSS and RW mutex from Boost.Thread. Rather, this point,
as well as all other "critical issues" suggest something that looks really
bad, and will be a focus of the follow-up mini review.
If you demonstrate that your implementation is better, and it significantly
affects users of libraries, and you have attempted to get Boost.Thread
improved (either by changing current implementation, or by adding yours
as alternative) and that failed, then I don't think anybody is going
to suggest you still use Boost.Thread facilities. But I do hope that
it will be possible to make Boost.Thread meet your requirements.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk