Re: [Boost-users] yet another logging library

From: Mojmir Svoboda (mojmir.svoboda_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-09 07:46:51

Morning,

* Maarten Nieber <hallomaarten_at_[hidden]> [2008-06-05 03:57:09 -0700]:

> I think you would need to explain the advantages of your (future)
> library over existing logging libraries. In what circumstances would
> your library be the better choice?

first version was a bloated mess, the second should be small and fast.
Mainly after reviewing ACE and log4c++.

John's work seems to be better in this aspect - i took a quick look
fastest_no_ostr_like.cpp

comparing to John's work i'd like to avoid heap allocations, exceptions
and rtti. also i'd like to avoid mutexes, because i consider it
a very heavy hammer. but of course the choice is up to user at the end.

there is a dark side of my approach: the user may not pay at the
runtime, but certainly he'll suffer at compile-time. what you gain
is control of the types passed to logging framework (how many times
we all messed a printf's format and arguments? :)

Regards,
Mojmir