Re: [boost] Review of Logging library begins today February 4th

From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-02-06 21:33:50

Scott Woods <scott.suzuki <at> gmail.com> writes:
> You might argue that your library does not prevent such output. Which would
> be true. What I am suggesting is that a Boost logging library should provide
> explicit solutions to such issues. With such formalizations in place a much 
> more ambitious viewer can be developed, giving a richer user experience than 
> notepad or nano. 

> Again I have the perception that your library does not preclude such output
> but also includes no specific solution. Which does not rule out your library
> in such circumstances but it does mean that supporting work would be
> required.

In my humble opinion, while youe point might be important in itself, it is 
kinda irrelevant to the submission under review. Absence of log format 
protocals, graphical viewer for logs or log query language shouldn't affect 
our decision IMO, unless library is not fexible enough and can't support what 
you have in mind. If you are interrested in bringing something like this to 
review I am sure it will have some interress. IMO the relationship here is 
similar to XML and all garden veriety of technologies build on top of it.

Gennadiy