Re: [Boost-users] yet another logging library

From: John Torjo (john.groups_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-10 00:17:00

Matthias Vallentin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 01:46:51PM +0200, Mojmir Svoboda wrote:
>   
>> there is a dark side of my approach: the user may not pay at the
>> runtime, but certainly he'll suffer at compile-time. what you gain
>> is control of the types passed to logging framework (how many times
>> we all messed a printf's format and arguments? :)
>>     
>
> <0.02>
> I would not consider this a dark side. Enduring long compile cycles
> seems tenable when optimizing for runtime-performance. Your design
> sounds appealing to me. I am exactly looking for a small and efficient
> logging library that provides basic functionality (levels, filters,
> facilities, filters and alike) and has been designed from scratch to be
> used in multi-threaded programs.
> </0.02>
>
>   
At this time, my library already does this - you can certainly specify 
whether you want thread-safety or not, and the lib is certainly efficient.

Best,
John

-- 
http://John.Torjo.com -- C++ expert
http://blog.torjo.com
... call me only if you want things done right