From: Bennett, Patrick (Patrick.Bennett_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-26 10:44:00
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> On Behalf Of Darren Cook
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 1:06 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Logging Library -- Formal Review Request
> > Depending on how the check is performed, the overhead is virtually
> > nonexistent.
> But still there :-).
[Bennett, Patrick] If you're concerned about a simple lookup, compare,
and jump, sure. :)
> >> BOOST_LOG(app,"testing " << i << '-' << j << '-' << k);
> > Well, you can count my vote against this method. For you, the entire
> > point of doing it this way is so that the logging can be compiled
> It is also slightly shorter. It seems just as natural to me.
[Bennett, Patrick] I suppose everybody has their preferences. I'm not
one to discount that. :)
> But I want to have both: I want some log statements I can insert while
> debugging time-critical code and disable at compile time, and others
> that are always there but that I can choose to switch on and off at
> run-time. And I want both in the same project.
> Perhaps then BOOST_LOG_DBG() is a better name for the one that can be
> compiled out. Or BOOST_LOGD().
[Bennett, Patrick] Sounds fine. I guess I just see the requirements
quite a bit different than (probably) many. I see a logging/tracing
library as something for diagnostics and debugging, not as a
here-and-there std::cout<<xxx substitute.
Many of the applications at the company I work at can easily log
*gigabytes* of diagnostic data an hour per subsystem. Logging isn't an
occasional nice to have for us, it's an absolutely necessity.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk