Re: [Boost-users] yet another logging library

From: Boris (boriss_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-09 09:27:16

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:40:20 +0200, Mojmir Svoboda  
<mojmir.svoboda_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> [...]
>> In my opinion one of the most important questions is what else can a  
>> Boost
>> logging library offer than what we can do today with:
>>
>> clog << "Logging ...";
>>
>> As we can easily redirect clog or replace it with another stream object
>> where we can control the buffer there must be some added value?
> [...]definitely my planned added value is run-time efficiency (with focus
> multithreaded environment).

The reason why I was mentioning Windows Event Logging and Event Tracing  
before was that I think a Boost Logging library should somehow support  
operating-system specific logging standards (or at least make it easy to  
support them). If a Boost Logging library was just a more efficient  
implementation of clog, maybe with a built-in mutex for thread-safety, it  
doesn't really deserve to be called a Boost library? :) For example the  
idea of a destination concept in John's library is already nice as a  
destination can be more than a stream (and I think there is even a  
destination class for syslog in John's code somewhere although I don't see  
it in the documentation).

Boris