Re: [boost] A meta-proposal for logging

From: JD (jean.daniel.michaud_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-03 17:18:32

> I'm not sure I got the idea correctly. Do you mean that the channel
> outputs the record only if some condition is satisfied (e.g. log level
> is high enough)? How is it different from sinks and filters?
>

I think a channel is a flow of log dealing with the same matter. The 
warning channel ? Maybe this is over design or useless. Or maybe this is 
interesting, I don't know. I was looking for precision from Caleb.

> JD, may be requirement #5 could be corrected:
> - "The library shall be able to output to different sink". Sinks? Is
> this what "multiplexing" above means?
> - "Each sink shall be link to a particular formatting". Did you mean
> "shall be able to have a particular formatting"?
> 

Fixed.

> 
> One thing that isn't clear for me now is the way the library should be
> initialized. Obviously, in most industrial-sized use cases the
> initialization should be made from an external source (e.g. a file
> with settings, system registry, etc.), but in a small-sized solutions
> either no or minimum initialization may be done right from code. The

Yes I agree. Simplicity.

> problem here is that I see no unified way to init the lib the first
> way. For some cases a simple text file would be sufficient, for others
> the settings should be in XML, for third ones they should be obtained
> not from the file at all. Therefore for now I can only think of a direct
> initialization from code. Any other suggestions/opinions?
> 

Do we want to manage windows registry? Count me against that.

Is there some generic way to obtain configuration from a file? 
_Boost.program_options_ ? Boost.Serialization?

Do we really want to deal with multiple file formats? I am not convinced.

I think minimal init in the code is a requirement. Logging shall be a 
simple task.

JD