From: John Torjo (john.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-19 11:31:11
>>In other words, if I understand correctly, you want to be able to set
>>the level of each log (independently of other logs).
>>In this case, instead of enabling/disabling logs, I can
>>simply set the
>>level of the logs -- and have a level called DISABLED (which is
>>equivalent to disabling one log)
> Just de-lurking for a moment here, but I'd like to add my vote for a
> form of this.
> At my work we have a logging library that has concepts of log topics and
> log levels. These are orthogonal - any particular log message is
> associated with one topic and has one level, but the messages for a
> given topic can have any level specified. The topics are arranged in a
> tree-like hierarchy, and if a minimum logging level is specified for a
> topic it also affects any subtopics of that topic which have not had a
> logging level specifically set.
I would assume what you call "topic" here, is what I've done by using
loggers/hierarchy. Have you read the docs?
> This allows us to easily tune the amount of logging information produced
> so that only the items we are specifically working on get logged at a
> high debugging level, without interference from components we are not
> interested in. This makes tracking problems considerably easier, as only
> the relevant information is output.
Yup, quite aggree.
-- John Torjo, Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal -- "Win32 GUI Generics" -- generics & GUI do mix, after all -- http://www.torjo.com/win32gui/ -v1.6.3 (Resource Splitter) -- http://www.torjo.com/cb/ - Click, Build, Run!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk