Re: [boost] Proposed Logging Library review

From: Scott Woods (scott.suzuki_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-02-11 15:09:39

Hi Paul,

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Baxter" <pauljbaxter_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Proposed Logging Library review

> The world of logging is so diverse, its almost impossible to satisfy all 
> aims simultaneously in elegant code.

A big yes to the diversity. I suspect that John's library is targeted at
developers and the edit+compile+test cycle. Further down the track
the same "logging" code might provide the engine for;

* support information
* operational alarms
* formal audit trail for EIS analysis
* billing
* statistical samples
* graphical instrumentation
* integration with external logging systems

It feels vaguely like the configurability of the library is supposed
to fulfill any such unspoken requirement. It may or may not but expanding
the scope to include items such as those above would choke the
average hippo.

For me this library would benefit from well advertised, intended goal
"This is a tool for developers", shuffling of documentation and out-of-
the-box configuration code. And it should be accepted or rejected on
whether it delivers on that reworked intent.

Yes Amit's review was great.

Cheers.