Subject: Re: [boost] [log] Boost.Log formal review
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-13 11:14:38
On 12 March 2010 22:48, Christian Holmquist <c.holmquist_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Barend Gehrels wrote:
>>> 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.
> I think that any reasonable log library must be compiled to it's own lib due
> to the intermodule singleton requirement. If some developers here think it's
> not an important feature or that programmers are better off without separate
> modules, please consider that users of your generic libraries may not be in
> the more trivial scenario with only one statically built .exe.
The suggestion is to have a lightweight logging library that can use
different backends, so all you'd have to do is use a backend which
meets your needs.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk