Subject: Re: [boost] [logging] Interest check on logging library.
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-01 10:01:49
Jamie Allsop wrote:
> If I recall your library requires a lib to be linked in. That's a deal
> breaker for me.
That is true, the library has to be compiled. If it is to support
multi-module configuration with centralized logging control, I don't see
how it could be done the other way.
> This library seems to move away from that. What I really
> need is captured in my review of John Torjo's second library
> I'd be interested if either library can support this minimal use case.
From what I read there, I'm pretty close to that, aside this part:
"users of the library must be able to use the libraries without logging
enabled and pay no cost". The cost will always be there since there will
be a run time check whether to write logs or not. My lib does filtering
for that matter.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk