Andrey Semashev skrev:
On 03/01/2010 01:37 PM, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
Hi Andrey,
I looked at the documentation, and couldn't find any comparison with other libraries besides a small log4j comparison. Therefore I wonder if such a comparison has been made, and if so, how it guided the design decisions.
In particular, I would like to see a quite detailed comparison with Pantheios:
There was no complete feature-wise comparison between them, but I think you can figure it out from the docs of the libraries.
Well, if I do a review, I will do that. However, you know your own library better than any. So *your* comparison would be a great starting point. Also, I think it is in general desireable that you can argue why your library is better or equally good compared to others; if not, then why should anybody use it (*)?
It would also be good if you could use this library as one to benchmark against.
Good.
I have plans of wrapping up a test suite to benchmark Boost.Log against different libraries. Pantheois will be one of them.
I would also like to know how your library differs from the one that was rejected by John Torjo, and how your library adresses the issue that was found with that library?
Actually, there's really not much in common between them. The most striking difference that you may notice is decoupling of loggers and sinks. Also, Boost.Log uses attributes to perform filtering and formatting of log records, which is something that was missing in John's proposal.
If you have a particular issue on your mind, please, specify. I'll try to answer more specifically.
I don't because I haven't followed that review and the decision to reject. However, it makes little sense to re-review the same problems. Therefore I strongly suggest that you make sure these issues have been addresses or that they don't apply to your library. -Thorsten (*) Andrey, your work looks very good and impressive, so don't take my comments too negative. Take them as something that could improve your library. Whenever one publishes a scientic paper, it is costumary to review earlier results and explan why your own results are better/different; if not, you won't get it published.