Re: [boost] [log] Review-ready version in the Vault

Subject: Re: [boost] [log] Review-ready version in the Vault
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-13 12:12:06

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrey Semashev" <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] [log] Review-ready version in the Vault

> 
> Dmitry Goncharov wrote:
>> 
>> syslog() generates log messages for syslogd. There is no syslogd on 
>> windows.
>> Where do you expect the syslog backend pass the messages to?
> 
> The syslog() and syslogd are the POSIX API, which among other things 
> allows to send log data to a remote server, using the syslog protocol, 
> which Peter refers to as RFC3164. The syslogd daemon, as well as many 
> other similar daemons, is capable of doing many more things with the log 
> data than to send it via the syslog protocol.
> 
> I feel that this approach may be valid for Windows, too. In particular, 
> I think that implementing a POSIX-compliant syslog API can have its 
> independent value. Among traditional support for RFC3164 and log files 
> it could support Windows-specific actions, like passing log records to 
> the Windows Event Log.
> 
> As for Boost.Log, once the POSIX API is implemented on Windows, it will 
> be supported by Boost.Log right away.

I agree, it is not the responsability of Boost.Log to provide a a POSIX-compliant syslog API implementation on every platform, in particular on Windows.

Vicente