Re: [boost] A meta-proposal for logging

From: Andrey Semashev (andysem_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-02 15:20:29

Hello JD,

Monday, April 2, 2007, 10:36:28 PM, you wrote:

> 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: 
> http://boost-logging.wikispaces.com/

> Tomorrow, I'll add the different requirements I read from previous post.
> Feel free to start now!

Great! I think, it's the only way to come to a viable solution.

[snip]

>> 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 ?

Since I'm interested in having such a library in Boost, I'd be happy
to participate.

-- 
Best regards,
 Andrey                            mailto:andysem_at_[hidden]