Re: [Boost-users] yet another logging library

From: Mojmir Svoboda (mojmir.svoboda_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-09 10:53:39

* Boris <boriss_at_[hidden]> [2008-06-09 15:27:16 +0200]:

> The reason why I was mentioning Windows Event Logging and Event Tracing  

this is it?
http://oreilly.com/catalog/winlog/chapter/ch02.html

> 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).

or like syslog? i tried it few times but was rather disappointed by the
performance. this is more like 'hey, something critical happened' than 
for regular full-blown logging. i wonder if it's better on any platform.

of course i will have a look at these, but i do not see any problem as
long as the two interfaces are somehow compatible with mine. i know
syslog, and it can certainly be integrated into it.

> 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? :)

it depends. we can always make things complex, but logging is not in 
most cases.

> 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).

well destination==sink, formatter==filter and that's it :) we both made
the same design decision as it seems.

mojmir