Subject: Re: [boost] [log] Boost.Log formal review
From: Roland Bock (rbock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-12 10:00:09
Barend Gehrels wrote:
>> I certainly agree that IF any boost library would want to log, we
>> should discuss in which way to do it. It is just that I fail to see
>> which one would actually want that.
> Yes, it is because I'm interested in logging from our library.
> I'm writing libraries since many years and always log, or have the need
> to log.
> But I'm not the only one.
> Accepted Boost libraries:
> Look e.g. in Boost.Geometry and you will find many places (this is our
> Look e.g. in Boost.Polygon and you will find 15 files writing to
> std::cout (= need to log)
> Long time Boost Libraries in Trunk:
> Boost.DateTime: 6 files writing to std::cout
> Boost.Math: writing to std::cout (#ifdef BOOST_INSTRUMENT)
> Boost.Spirit: has file debug.hpp
> I didn't look in more of the sandbox but I'm sure there is more need for
> Therefore I advocate a (as Rob states it nicely) *lightweight* logging
> utility and I had hoped that Boost.Log would fulfil this need. If it
> does not, it does not mean that Boost.Log is not good or not useful, of
> course. And maybe I would use it for my own programs. But it is not the
> library I'm looking for as a library writer.
Thanks :-) I was not aware of that.
My impression is that Boost.Log is too heavyweight for this job (and as
Daniel pointed out, it might restrict to too few platforms).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk