From: Greer, Joe (jgreer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-02 13:26:36
The gist of what I got out of the previous discussion(s) was that what
is desired is a C++ api from which the user can construct and deploy a
logging solution tailored to their own needs. For example, one user may
need an extremely lightweight logging solution (no bells and whistles)
whereas another might like a more heavyweight solution (timestamps etc).
The user would configure what they want using the supplied logging api
via policies or whatever. Given this idea, they would then necessarily
define their own macros using their tailored logging classes. Of
course, lots of examples as to how to define these macros guide the
If I am totally off base, I am sure someone else will chime in. :)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> On Behalf Of JD
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 12:56 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Logging library - first draft
> Caleb Epstein wrote:
> > On 3/31/07, JD <jean.daniel.michaud_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >> So here is the question:
> >> "Is there any interest in a logging library for boost?"
> > Of course there is.
> > I see from later emails you've read the discussion surrounding John
> > Torjo's submission (some of which was from me). Thanks for taking
> > time to do that. You might also give careful reading to Gennadiy
> > Rozental's review of the library, which I believe convinced John to
> > retract his submission:
> Ouch. Gennadiy is one tough guy... He seems to have very precise idea
> what is a log library, and has apparently developed one. I wonder why
> it's still not included into boost!...
> > You might also want to look at this message, where I took a brief
> > at implementing some of the concepts that were raised in the library
> > proposal discussion:
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/135968
> Yes, I may have use of this.
> > In your example above, you're showing what looks like a 100%
> > macro-based interface. I would recommend strongly against this.
> > Any logging library should be free-standing and usable without
> > *requiring* macros like the above.
> Why? I like macros for this particular case. Here again there is a
> debate, that is not close to being over...
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk