Re: [boost] Review of Logging library begins today February 4th

From: Jurko Gospodnetić (jurko.gospodnetic_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-02-05 20:46:56

   Hi Scott.

> 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 could not agree more. :-)

> 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 would suggest a compromise here though as what this library is 
supposed to provide as currently implemented is greatly needed as it 
stands - even without this additional formatting layer. In most cases 
when logging comes up as a requirement for me those logs need to be 
conditionally and partially enabled at run-time, are used only for 
manual inspection without any automated tools or where quick shell 
scripts using grep/sed/awk suffice and there is not great big-brother 
enterprise infrastructure that these logs need to integrate into. So in 
those cases such standardized tools, even though potentially nice, are 
not strictly required.

   Perhaps as I am not really knowledgeable in that 'enterprise domain' 
I do not really see how such an additional layer (a new one) could ever 
integrate into existing enterprise environments. Such places are most 
often too rigid to change their existing ways/formats/tools... Thus any 
such future layer seems like it would potentially help only new projects.

   That said, I'd really like if Boost Logging or an additional 
extension library would provide such a layer, however I would not impose 
that on John as a must. On the other hand... I understand the need and 
would give a *nudge* in persuading him to take it on. :-)))

   It seems to me that there is more chance of that layer getting 
implemented if the library is made public as a part of boost which would 
gain it more users than forcing John to implement the additional layer. 
He could very well get tangled up in real-life work in the mean time, 
and not be able to finish the library (at least not on time), and the 
already done parts (quite useful by themselves) would not get enough 
users of the right caliber for a new maintainer to be found.

   Best regards,
     Jurko Gospodnetić