On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:37:38 +0100, Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su> wrote:
[...]3. Please explicitly state in your review whether the library should be accepted.
The library should be accepted (acceptance is overdue :).
4. The general review checklist is provided below:
- What is your evaluation of the design?
The design makes perfectly sense to me. The library is neither too complicated nor is it just another simple stream class. If you think the evaluation is a bit short: I've used John Torjo's library for about a year before I switched to Andrey's library. That was beginning of 2009 I think. That said I evaluated the libraries quite some time ago and don't really remember all the details. However I do remember that I liked Andrey's library better than John's (which hasn't been updated for years anyway).
- What is your evaluation of the implementation?
Didn't look at the implementation.
- What is your evaluation of the documentation?
The documentation is really good and in my opinion one of the better ones of the Boost libraries.
- What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
It's a logging library and useful by definition. :)
- Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems?
I started to use Andrey's library about a year ago (if I remember correctly). I tried it with VC++ on Windows and g++ on Linux. I had some questions and requests but that's all long ago (eg. there was only a syslog backend in the beginning; now there is support for the Windows NT event log, too).
- How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study?
I thoroughly evaluated Andrey's library in 2009 - especially as I had used John Torjo's library before and wanted to know whether I should switch.
- Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
I'm not a logging expert but had compared both Boost.Log candidates from John and Andrey very thoroughly. Boris