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