Morning,
* Maarten Nieber
I think you would need to explain the advantages of your (future) library over existing logging libraries. In what circumstances would your library be the better choice?
first version was a bloated mess, the second should be small and fast. Mainly after reviewing ACE and log4c++. John's work seems to be better in this aspect - i took a quick look fastest_no_ostr_like.cpp comparing to John's work i'd like to avoid heap allocations, exceptions and rtti. also i'd like to avoid mutexes, because i consider it a very heavy hammer. but of course the choice is up to user at the end. 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? :) Regards, Mojmir