From: Konstantin Litvinenko (Konstantin.Litvinenko_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-03 01:46:48
You wrote on Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:59:32 -0400:
CE> I'd argue strongly against basing any Boost.Logging library on any of
CE> the multitude of C++ ports of log4j (of which there are at least
CE> log4cpp, log4cplus, log4cxx). They are generally bloated, suffer from
CE> a horribly baroque runtime configuration,
I can say only about log4cpp. I don't see any problem with it runtime
configuration. I can control all aspects of logging. Yes, sometimes function
arguments and return values surprise me, but this can be easily fixed to be
more natural. Also I never do configuring by hands - only from config files.
Recently I added factories into library to make writting different kind of
configurators easy task. About bloating. I know every peace of library and
can say that there is samething not needed.
CE> and do not make good use of C++ language features.
About what features you talk? All you need is: 1) configure - this is
one call, say `logging::configure(filename)`. 2) Do logging -
`logger.error('Somethis wrong');`, `logger.infoStream() << "Value is " <<
value";`. What else do you need?
CE> Some of them are
CE> also more or less dead projects (e.g. Apache's log4cxx's home page
CE> mentions that "At this point, log4cxx-0.9.7 is substantially out of
CE> date, has known serious deficiencies" but no successor version has been
CE> released in over two years.
Last release of log4cpp was at 2005/07/29 and it is not dead.
With best regards, Konstantin Litvinenko.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk