Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] loglite - A logging library
From: JD (jean.daniel.michaud_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-29 09:19:12

On Oct 28, 9:51 pm, Emil Dotchevski <emildotchev..._at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:14 PM, JD <jean.daniel.mich..._at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> > It's been a while since a discussion about logging hasn't ran on the
> >> > boost mailing list.
> >> > I have a small logging library implementing some of the requirements
> >> > that were previously deemed desirable during the discussion we had here
> >> > a couple of years ago.
> What is the rationale for attaching semantics to messages (log,
> warning, error, etc.)? I'm assuming the logging library isn't going to
> take action -- such as terminate the program in case of a fatal error
> -- so why not just define severity level?

I'm using semantics to satisfy the 2 requirements below :
7. Configurable log message attributes
9. Filtering support

from the draft document written some time ago :

Now, on the practical side, it helps route the traces differently for
each sink. You would have all the logs in a file, but only the errors
on the standard output. And that's different from the log level, that
define the amount of log you want depending on the compilation
configuration (debug/release).


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at