Re: [boost] Boost.Log formal review upcoming

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Log formal review upcoming
From: strasser_at_[hidden]
Date: 2010-03-02 18:59:27

Zitat von Matthias Vallentin <vallentin_at_[hidden]>:

> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 02:44:32PM -0500, Daniel Larimer wrote:
>> If my "requirements" fall outside the scope of 'logging' then perhaps
>> we should define what logging means.
>
> Your description of logging is similar to the notion in the database
> community, e.g., using WAL to store records on disk in order to reread
> at a later point of time in case the main data structures are
> inconsistent due to a crash or bug. In this scenario, I agree that a
> logging library should offer a vehicle to efficiently transport the data
> to a backend. The duality of writing the data out and reading it back in

we use binary logging like that in the libraries-under-construction  
Boost.STLdb and .Persistent, and are in the process of uniting that  
system to be used by both libraries and potentially other boost  
libraries.

this type of logging has very different requirements than logging some  
activity in human-readable form, from performance and data consistency  
viewpoints, so I'd like to know if you consider that type of logging  
within the scope of a boost logging library, and specifically within  
the scope of the proposed Boost.Log.

should I review the library with that use case in mind?