Re: [boost] [log] Boost.Log formal review

Subject: Re: [boost] [log] Boost.Log formal review
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-13 10:09:38

On 03/12/2010 12:40 PM, Barend Gehrels wrote:
>
>>> Is it possible to use Boost.Log in header-only mode, assuming a simple
>>> use case without threads and separate DLLs?
>>
>> No, the library has to be compiled anyway. However, if your
>> application is a single .exe module, you can link statically with
>> Boost.Log and other libraries.
>
> OK, I must say that I'm not so happy with that. What is the reason for
> the need to compile? Logging is very useful, but to statically link only
> because of logging is in many cases not convenient.

You do link anyway, do you? :) What is the problem of adding a library 
to the linker command line?

> Would it be possible (technically or otherwise) to adapt it to be header
> only, as a whole or just the core part?

Not right now. The library relies on process-scope singletons in several 
places. Also, the implementation itself is heavy enough.

Another alternative I might suggest is to compile the library sources 
along with your project.