Subject: Re: [boost] [log] Boost.Log formal review
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-12 08:29:55
On 12 March 2010 12:37, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I haven't thought through how what I'm describing might be done in an efficient and flexible manner. Maybe I'm really just saying that Boost.Log should provide a really lightweight path to an easily customized adapter that directs the logging output to the application's logging mechanism. What I don't want is for such a path to trigger the creation of threads or otherwise impose on the application much more than just a simple redirection to the application's preferred logging API.
That's not a bad idea, but it sounds to me like it should be separate
from Boost.Log. If we ever manage to modularize boost, then you
wouldn't want everything that depends on this lightweight logging
header to depend on Boost.Log.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk