Re: [boost] [logging] Interest check on logging library.

Subject: Re: [boost] [logging] Interest check on logging library.
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-27 20:44:16

On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 3:13 PM, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> on Sat Dec 27 2008, "Jason Wagner" <jason-AT-nialscorva.net> wrote:
>
>>>  My reasoning is that a logging library should be lightweight in terms
>>>  of source code; when I need logging, I'd rather not get boost::mpl
>>>  too.
>>
>> Understandable.  Everything's a matter of tradeoffs.  The project I'm working on has a
>> slightly more involved logging use case.  One concern I have is how much compile times
>> will be affected by MPL and the templates I'm using and whether the flexibility is
>> worth the cost.
>
> One should keep in mind that MPL is specifically designed to avoid
> needless compile-time costs.  Drawing in a few MPL headers may not be
> a measurable expense.

I am not against using MPL together with the logging library, but
ideally I'd like that to be a user decision. Why not have the logging
library use something like logging_traits::flag, where "flag" is
user-specified and might use MPL, but might also be simply "true" or
"false". I understand the logging library interface is more complex
than this but the general approach I'm describing is applicable, is it
not?

-- 
Emil Dotchevski
Reverge Studios, Inc.
http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode