From: Scott Woods (scott.suzuki_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-02-05 20:21:55
> What you suggest is a whole new layer built on top of what the log
> library provides - as proposed & currently implemented. YMMV but what it
> does provide is something I find 'seriously lacking' in the currently
> available set of C++ libraries.
> Stating that it should not be accepted only due to it not containing
> that additional layer of support seems wrong, provided of course that
> what it does provide passes well through this public review. :-)
You make a series of valid points. My enduring difficulty is that the
phrase "whole new layer built on top" is technically correct, results in
the whole new layer never being created and terabytes of free-format
log files "out there".
I also suspect that if the "new layer" issue was addressed up front it
would push the design around a bit. There could be a cleaner separation
between a layer that transports bytes from the point of logging to the
place of storage and the layer that codes and decodes application data
to and from the byte stream.
I acknowledge that my goal is higher and readily perceived as too lofty.
But I have watched the evolution of too many logging scenarios to accept
the logging library without that "new layer on top". It will become yet
agent spreading the plague of unformatted bytes ;-)
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk