Subject: Re: [boost] [log] Boost.Log formal review
From: Roland Bock (rbock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-12 10:00:09
Barend Gehrels wrote:
>> I certainly agree that IF any boost library would want to log, we
>> should discuss in which way to do it. It is just that I fail to see
>> which one would actually want that.
> Yes, it is because I'm interested in logging from our library.
>
> I'm writing libraries since many years and always log, or have the need
> to log.
>
> But I'm not the only one.
>
> Accepted Boost libraries:
> Look e.g. in Boost.Geometry and you will find many places (this is our
> library)
> Look e.g. in Boost.Polygon and you will find 15 files writing to
> std::cout (= need to log)
>
> Long time Boost Libraries in Trunk:
> Boost.DateTime: 6 files writing to std::cout
> Boost.Math: writing to std::cout (#ifdef BOOST_INSTRUMENT)
> Boost.Spirit: has file debug.hpp
>
> I didn't look in more of the sandbox but I'm sure there is more need for
> this.
>
> 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.
Thanks :-) I was not aware of that.
My impression is that Boost.Log is too heavyweight for this job (and as
Daniel pointed out, it might restrict to too few platforms).