Due to technical reasons this reply went off-list. For sake of keeping the conversation public, I'm reposting it. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [boost] [log] review part 1 Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:08:14 +0300 From: Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev@gmail.com> To: Steven Watanabe <watanabesj@gmail.com> On 03/12/2010 07:22 AM, Steven Watanabe wrote:
I mostly have documentation notes at this point. Andrey, since I have so many, and they're mostly fairly minor, would it be better if I made a patch for the documentation source?
Yes, that would be great. I quickly reviewed your suggestions, and they all look reasonable (I always have a hard time with articles). Thanks!
I think newbies should probably be replace globally with new users, since I kind of feel that the term newbie is somewhat derogatory.
Ok. I didn't mean to offend anyone, of course. :)
http://boost-log.sourceforge.net/libs/log/doc/html/log/defs.html ================================================================================
For Log record: I don't like the expression "A single pack of information," although I can't think of anything better off hand.
A collection of data,...?
================================================================================
Issues:
Instead of compiling a narrow or wide library, why don't you use libboost_log and libboost_wlog?
There are parts that would be the same in both these libraries. Most notably, singletons of file_collector repository and some constants. This might lead to linking problems if someone tries to use both versions of the library.
I agree with other comments that I saw about Attribute being a poor choice for what it does. I would prefer that the term "Attribute" should be used for what you call an "Attribute Value," and that there should be a different term, like "Attribute Extractor" for what you call an "Attribute."
My understanding of the term "attribute" is that it's some kind of meta-information that defines the concrete values that will be attached to log records. I'm ready to agree that the word "attribute" doesn't bring my intention precisely, but the alternatives don't quite get closer. "Extractors" are reserved for another tool in the library.
AMDG Andrey Semashev wrote:
I agree with other comments that I saw about Attribute being a poor choice for what it does. I would prefer that the term "Attribute" should be used for what you call an "Attribute Value," and that there should be a different term, like "Attribute Extractor" for what you call an "Attribute."
My understanding of the term "attribute" is that it's some kind of meta-information that defines the concrete values that will be attached to log records. I'm ready to agree that the word "attribute" doesn't bring my intention precisely, but the alternatives don't quite get closer. "Extractors" are reserved for another tool in the library.
Now that I've read more of the documentation, I think I see what you mean. How about "attribute generator"? In Christ, Steven Watanabe
On 03/15/2010 05:39 AM, Steven Watanabe wrote:
AMDG
Andrey Semashev wrote:
I agree with other comments that I saw about Attribute being a poor choice for what it does. I would prefer that the term "Attribute" should be used for what you call an "Attribute Value," and that there should be a different term, like "Attribute Extractor" for what you call an "Attribute."
My understanding of the term "attribute" is that it's some kind of meta-information that defines the concrete values that will be attached to log records. I'm ready to agree that the word "attribute" doesn't bring my intention precisely, but the alternatives don't quite get closer. "Extractors" are reserved for another tool in the library.
Now that I've read more of the documentation, I think I see what you mean. How about "attribute generator"?
Uhm, that doesn't quite tick me either. Could be "attribute source", but the term "source" is already used. Perhaps, the "attribute" thing wasn't really a good choice. Maybe, it should have been as simple as "marker" and "mark". I don't know, I don't have good alternatives right now.
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev@gmail.com>wrote:
On 03/15/2010 05:39 AM, Steven Watanabe wrote:
AMDG
Andrey Semashev wrote:
I agree with other comments that I saw about Attribute being
a poor choice for what it does. I would prefer that the term "Attribute" should be used for what you call an "Attribute Value," and that there should be a different term, like "Attribute Extractor" for what you call an "Attribute."
My understanding of the term "attribute" is that it's some kind of meta-information that defines the concrete values that will be attached to log records. I'm ready to agree that the word "attribute" doesn't bring my intention precisely, but the alternatives don't quite get closer. "Extractors" are reserved for another tool in the library.
Now that I've read more of the documentation, I think I see what you mean. How about "attribute generator"?
Uhm, that doesn't quite tick me either. Could be "attribute source", but the term "source" is already used. Perhaps, the "attribute" thing wasn't really a good choice. Maybe, it should have been as simple as "marker" and "mark". I don't know, I don't have good alternatives right now.
How about "attributor"? This implies that it DOES something, not IS something. In particular, it implies that it's used for associating attribute values with log records, and is also somewhat concise. Zach
On 03/15/2010 07:13 PM, Zachary Turner wrote:
How about "attributor"? This implies that it DOES something, not IS something. In particular, it implies that it's used for associating attribute values with log records, and is also somewhat concise.
Is it a valid English word?
Andrey Semashev wrote:
On 03/15/2010 07:13 PM, Zachary Turner wrote:
How about "attributor"? This implies that it DOES something, not IS something. In particular, it implies that it's used for associating attribute values with log records, and is also somewhat concise.
Is it a valid English word?
Yes, but it means "one which attributes" (accent on the "tri" rather than the "att"), i.e., "one which ascribes". I'm not sure that's appropriate in this context. Steven's suggestion of "attribute generator" seemed to be closer. - Jeff
Andrey Semashev wrote:
On 03/15/2010 07:13 PM, Zachary Turner wrote:
How about "attributor"? This implies that it DOES something, not IS something. In particular, it implies that it's used for associating attribute values with log records, and is also somewhat concise.
Is it a valid English word? I don't think so, but well, neither is functor.
I liked the term immediately :-)
participants (5)
-
Andrey Semashev -
Jeffrey Hellrung -
Roland Bock -
Steven Watanabe -
Zachary Turner