From: Andrey Semashev (andysem_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-02 15:20:29
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:
> 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.
>> 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
-- Best regards, Andrey mailto:andysem_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk