From: JD (jean.daniel.michaud_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-02 14:36:28
Austin Bingham wrote:
> The recent discussions about a logging library have been wonderful,
> and they demonstrate the strengths of the boost approach. These
> discussions have also demonstrated that logging is a lot more complex
> than many of us would have probably anticipated. It seems that a)
> everyone wants logging and that b) no one can agree on what it is. I
> think that a lot of this stems from the fact that logging encompasses
> many competing facets (e.g. thread-safety v. performance v. macros:
> evil or really evil? v. the kitchen sink) and these are, naturally,
> difficult to completely grok and balance.
> So, what I'm proposing is that we step back and do some sort of
> requirements analysis. I don't mean anything terribly formal, but
> rather some place where we can try to centralize our ideas on what
> a logging library comprises. Trying to use the list archives to keep
> track of every variation of every aspect of logging is error-prone and
> frustrating, but something like a wiki would make it much easier to
> present the totality of everyone's input.
Yes, I think it's a good idea. I don't know if a wiki is the best
solution. Anyway, I have just created one:
Tomorrow, I'll add the different requirements I read from previous post.
Feel free to start now!
> As we collect and organize our thoughts, I'm hoping that a less murky
> picture of what we should do will emerge. What are the orthogonal
> aspects of logging, and which are intertwined? Are there different
> paradigms of logging that we should treat as distinct? What are the
> apparent tradeoffs of different concerns, and are there some concerns
> that appear in conflict but which really aren't?
> My sense is that, as we really clarify what all of the concerns are,
> we'll have a better shared sense of what everyone's looking for. We'll
> have a sort of lingua franca or common starting point from which to
> develop boost logging. Jean Daniel's recent work on organizing input
> from the Torjo review is a brilliant start to this kind of effort.
A brilliant start would have been to come with the library written. It's
a pity John did not push it to the end, but after reading Gennadiy's
review, I can understand why.
> So, these are just my thoughts on the issue. I would *love* to see a
> logging library in boost, and it always frustrates me (and, I imagine,
> others) that we can't seem to agree on often the simplest
> things. Maybe I'm way off target here, but I think a little high-level
> organization could yield big dividends in this case.
Yes. What do you think if some people interested in the definition of
such library get together and form a group of interest? So the library
do not depend from the motivation of an individual that could run out of
gaz under the constant flow of Boost member's constructive but yet
sometime discouraging critics.
The team would write those requirements, propose them to the community
and defend them in order to push this library into boost. I think this
would require some boost authoritative figure to lead this effort. Anyone ?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk