Re: [boost] thoughts on logging library: orthogonal runtime configuration

From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-09 18:53:06

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "brass goowy" <brass_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: [boost]thoughts on logging library: orthogonal runtime 
configuration

> Vicente Botet writes:
>>Hi Christian,
> [snip]
>>> Configuring the above with a compiled library like boost serialization
>>> is an interesting task as well, that I definitely think should be
>>> addressed. could be that the flexibility decreases some in such a
>>> scenario, or it could be configued in site-config.jam or whatever.
>>
>>Once the serialization library provide traces or log, if you want to use 
>>the
>>serialization library with logs you should add a define at compile time
>>e.g. -DBOOST_SERIALIZATION_LOG_ENABLE and link with the serialization 
>>logged
>>variant e.g. -lboost_lserialization.
>>
>
> This is a good example of the need for compilers that output the code they
> generate based on templates.  If they did that, the library writer could
> have an online service that spits out the final deliverable rather than
> users having to maintain different versions of a library.  It is a slow
> and error prone process to rebuild a library/application as suggested 
> here.
> Alternatively, service providers would have logging versions of their code 
> available
> for users in the field, in effect eliminating the long and unproductive 
> process of
> a rebuild.   Because the code is built by the service provider rather than 
> less
> experienced users, configuration confusion is mitigated.  As the needs 
> here are
> pressing,  we hope the problems with the status quo will be addressed 
> sooner
> than later.

I have never said that the "less experienced users" must rebuild a service 
provider library. An unhapplly some times they need to do it because even 
libraries done by experienced providers have bugs that appear only on the 
user field. Not this was not at all my purpose.

The fact is that libraries can have some logs in the headers. So an 
application needing a login version of a given library (e.g. serialization), 
needs to link with the specific loging version (e.g -lboost_*l*serialization 
instead of -lboost_serialization) and possible to define something 
like -DBOOST_SERIALIZATION_LOG_ENABLE  if the library contains some logs on 
the headers.
Please note the difference between
-lboost_lserialization and
-lboost_serialization.
I have use 'l' because the serialization library adds already a w for wide 
chars.

I suspect that we are telling the same thing. Please could you be more 
explicit and say what is wrong?

Best regards
____________________
Vicente Juan Botet Escriba