Re: [boost] A meta-proposal for logging

From: Austin Bingham (abingham_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-03 14:55:49

On 2007-04-03, JD <jean.daniel.michaud_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Concerning req id 3: Michael, I don't really get this statement. I think 
> it's really to the library user (programmer) to decide which log shall 
> be present or not. He's in charge of filtering the logs following the 
> compilation configuration (debug or release). I don't think the library 
> shall manage this by itself. Or maybe I did not get your point at all!

I think the idea here is to eliminate certain kinds of information from
object files/binaries. That is, if the user decides to eliminate the
"top-secret debug log" from release builds, the generated binaries should
give no indication that this log exists at all.

>    I can't disagree more with this. IMO, logging is not at all a way to 
> give information to the program user. In my mind, a logging library is 
> intended only for debugging, journaling, auditing and performance 
> measuring. Not a way to display error message or waiting message to the 
> user. In my mind, these are totally different things. Please someone, 
> give his POV on this, I think this is a major disagreement.

You're probably going to find yourself in the minority here. In many 
instances, a log might be the only way communicate an error to the
user; consider, say, a webserver or NFS lock daemon. More generally, I
think that a generally useful logging system will be able to handle
arbitrary logging and won't be concerned with domains or specific
usage patterns.

--
Austin Bingham
Signal & Information Sciences Laboratory
Applied Research Laboratories, University of Texas at Austin
10000 Burnet Rd., Austin, TX 78758
email:  abingham_at_[hidden]
cell:   [phone]
office: [phone]