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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk