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.

Cheers.


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk