What's the status of log library? - Boost-users - lists.preview.boost.org

newer
Problem with boost 1.36 on RHEL4

What's the status of log library?

older
regex_replace for removing words

archie14

21 May 2011 21 May '11

11:16 a.m.

When the log library (http://boost-log.sourceforge.net/) will be the part of official boost distribution? If there is no log library currently included in boost then what is the one most in use?

Reply

Sign in to reply online Use email software

Show replies by date

Slav

21 May 21 May

11:55 a.m.

I am interested in it too. Logging is the important part of many applications - it's strange that boost does not have one. Can somebody now something about boost's log library? Thank you.

Reply

Sign in to reply online Use email software

Tim Moore

2:06 p.m.

Reply

Sign in to reply online Use email software

archie14

22 May 22 May

11:04 a.m.

Tim Moore writes:

I believe the library was accepted provisionally in 2010 and is awaiting modifications by the

author:http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2011/03/177804.php

quite sad, actually. Either library exists in boost or it does not. Year and a half is sufficiently large time period for the author to either complete the library or withdraw it. I remember reading in the posts that previous library, done by Torjo (apologies if I mingled the name) is supposed to be deprecated. And now what? Personally, I'd like to say boost-compliant, if there is such a thing, but with such important functionality as logging missing from boost it seems to be impossible for now. (even if the word I have to enter to proof the message is "flame" this post is nothing of such kind. Just lamenting...)

Reply

Sign in to reply online Use email software

Gordon Woodhull

9:16 p.m.

On May 22, 2011, at 6:04 AM, archie14 wrote:

Tim Moore writes:

...
I believe the library was accepted provisionally in 2010 and is awaiting modifications by the author: http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2011/03/177804.php

quite sad, actually. Either library exists in boost or it does not. Year and a half is sufficiently large time period for the author to either complete the library or withdraw it.

Please try to understand 1. This is a volunteer organization and hardly anyone is getting paid to work on this stuff. 2. The conditions on acceptance were pretty stringent for this library. 3. One of the conditions was to use Phoenix lambdas instead of the home-made stuff Andrey came up with. Phoenix has been in flux and is only now ready for other libraries to build on it. In other words, it's not really either-or: there's a lot of work in the intermediate stage. That's part of how the libraries end up so good. :-)

I remember reading in the posts that previous library, done by Torjo (apologies if I mingled the name) is supposed to be deprecated.

John Torjo's library was rejected. I understand it's much simpler and smaller, and there could still be a place for such a library. (It's okay to have two libraries with the same purpose and different approaches.)

(even if the word I have to enter to proof the message is "flame" this post is nothing of such kind. Just lamenting...)

Understood.

Reply

Sign in to reply online Use email software

Michael Caisse

9:38 p.m.

On 05/22/2011 02:16 PM, Gordon Woodhull wrote:

On May 22, 2011, at 6:04 AM, archie14 wrote:

...
Tim Moore writes:

...
I believe the library was accepted provisionally in 2010 and is awaiting modifications by the author: http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2011/03/177804.php

quite sad, actually. Either library exists in boost or it does not. Year and a half is sufficiently large time period for the author to either complete the library or withdraw it.

Please try to understand 1. This is a volunteer organization and hardly anyone is getting paid to work on this stuff. 2. The conditions on acceptance were pretty stringent for this library. 3. One of the conditions was to use Phoenix lambdas instead of the home-made stuff Andrey came up with. Phoenix has been in flux and is only now ready for other libraries to build on it.

In other words, it's not really either-or: there's a lot of work in the intermediate stage. That's part of how the libraries end up so good. :-)

Also... log uses filesystem which was updated with a non-backwards compatible version (V3). Recent changes to boost log appear to be available on the sourceforge trunk. It is being actively worked on. michael -- Michael Caisse Object Modeling Designs www.objectmodelingdesigns.com

Reply

Sign in to reply online Use email software

4921

Age (days ago)

4922

Last active (days ago)

Download

5 comments

5 participants

tags

participants (5)

archie14
Gordon Woodhull
Michael Caisse
Slav
Tim Moore