Boost logo

Boost :

From: Scott Woods (scott.suzuki_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-02-06 22:25:53

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gennadiy Rozental" <rogeeff_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Review of Logging library begins today February 4th

> In my humble opinion, while youe point might be important in itself, it is
> kinda irrelevant to the submission under review. Absence of log format
> protocals, graphical viewer for logs or log query language shouldn't
> affect
> our decision IMO, unless library is not fexible enough and can't support
> what
> you have in mind. If you are interrested in bringing something like this
> to
> review I am sure it will have some interress. IMO the relationship here is
> similar to XML and all garden veriety of technologies build on top of it.

Points taken. In my defense, where I hear of a new logging solution I will
continue to look for an included encoding spec. Logging without one is
so much less.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at