From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-20 07:48:29
John Torjo wrote:
>>I think that hierarchical loggers ala log4j are necessary.
> Yes, they are, and I will certainly implement them.
> Each type of log will have a unique internal ID, by which you use it
> within your program
> (example: LOG(activity) << "blabla")
What's "activity"? Is that variable?
> and a string associated with it (example: "app.activity").
> Based on this hierarchy the message will be forwarded to a certain
> function. Also, enabling/disabling of logs can happen like this:
> logs().disable( "*.warn.*"); // disable all warning messages
Ok, that's fine.
>>that to write a custom function do to the same. Further, with a custom
>>function you cannot customize the processing chain from config file.
> you can do basically anything with a custom function (if you wish:D)
> As with the config file, if anyone wants to specify processing chain
> in a config file, they will implement it on top of my log library.
> I don't intend to provide working with a config file from the log
> library - that would be too much coupling.
I meant something different. Customizing things from config file is much
easier if you have fine-grained building blocks -- for adding timestamp,
for some filtering, for adding to file. If library does not provide such
building blocks, it's usability will be very limited.
>>Besides, I think configuring loggers from config file is a very good
> Yes, me too (mostly enabling/disabling). But, you should use another
> library to read from the config file (for instance: Persisting Settings
> Library (http://builder.com.com/5100-6370-5157525.html?tag=sc)), and
> then specify the logging options.
Well, I can use the program_options library for that ;-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk