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 14:18:54

On 03/13/2010 07:14 PM, Daniel James wrote:
> 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.

I wouldn't call that a "logging library" since it doesn't actually write 
logs. It's more like a binding or a wrapper.