Re: [boost] Boost Logging library - first draft

From: Austin Bingham (abingham_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-03 08:35:00

On 2007-04-03, Caleb Epstein <caleb.epstein_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> ... I think I took this problem too lightly. We shall not focus on
>> implementation at first but more on the requirements. Austin Bingham, in
>
> Requirements are tough, because everyone (including me!) has different
> ones.  I think it might be more productive to try and identify the
> core concepts required to implement the various requested features and
> come up with clear specifications for their interfaces.  Then take
> these

FWIW, figuring out the "requested features" is what I figured the first
step would need to be. Some people need complex routing and filtering,
others need file-based configuration, and others will tell you that these
features are a waste of time. If we can get a handle on what people want
and then start to couple that information with implementation ideas, we'll
have made some real progress.

I just want to contrast this with what I see on the list. Every other
week or so, someone submits a logging library that "they've been working
on for a while" and which "has great features X, Y, and Z". Some people
like it, others point out its failings, and the matter never gets any
further. I simply don't think that this is an efficient way to zero in
on a useful, generally acceptable logging system.
 
--
Austin Bingham
Signal & Information Sciences Laboratory
Applied Research Laboratories, University of Texas at Austin
10000 Burnet Rd., Austin, TX 78758
email:  abingham_at_[hidden]
cell:   [phone]
office: [phone]