Hi Tom, Thanks for the review.
* What is your evaluation of the design?
Introduces alot of new concepts for something relatively simple, logging. A
study of the headers suggests a boostified functional style, but with lots of macros, which some developers here have no objection over. I on the other hand
Just to make sure , you're talking about this: http://torjo.com/log2/doc/html/macros.html, right?
would like to see less, or even no macros in the public interface. A functional, lambda style logging interface should be adequate. If a macro is needed, suggest it as a
Ok.
work-around, but dont force it on the user in the example(s).
I see..
* What is your evaluation of the documentation?
Overall, I didnt like the informal style, but I was able to get the information I needed. Author tries to be too "cute" or "friendly". Author should get rid of informal comments and replace them with more professional language.
Point taken.
* What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
Potential is high. Would I use this library. As it stands, no. The tradeoff/benefits still suggest to me that logging requirements are too application specific, and this library doesnt change that equation. If it had a simple, boostified, lambda interface, with no macros, and no learning curve, I would probably use it.
When talking about "lambda interface", do you mean to use functors, in general? Like, for filtering and logging?
* Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
No.
I would evaluate it again, if the author would create a more boost friendly, lambda style public interface.
Well, it seems I have no choice ;) Best, John -- http://John.Torjo.com -- C++ expert http://blog.torjo.com ... call me only if you want things done right