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

From: John Torjo (john.groups_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-02-06 21:24:20

>   
>> 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 
>   
I could not agree more :)
> 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.
>
>   
Very true!
>    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. :-)))
>
>   
Oh well - I can't promise anything. I might actually take on this 
challenge - 'cause I really love logging - so as soon as I have some 
free time.
> He could very well get tangled up in real-life work in the mean time, 
>   
Oh yes - busyness is a second nature to me ;)

Best,
John

-- 
http://John.Torjo.com -- C++ expert
http://blog.torjo.com
... call me only if you want things done right