Hello JD, Monday, April 2, 2007, 10:36:28 PM, you wrote:
Austin Bingham wrote:
The recent discussions about a logging library have been wonderful, and they demonstrate the strengths of the boost approach. These discussions have also demonstrated that logging is a lot more complex than many of us would have probably anticipated. It seems that a) everyone wants logging and that b) no one can agree on what it is. I think that a lot of this stems from the fact that logging encompasses many competing facets (e.g. thread-safety v. performance v. macros: evil or really evil? v. the kitchen sink) and these are, naturally, difficult to completely grok and balance.
So, what I'm proposing is that we step back and do some sort of requirements analysis. I don't mean anything terribly formal, but rather some place where we can try to centralize our ideas on what a logging library comprises. Trying to use the list archives to keep track of every variation of every aspect of logging is error-prone and frustrating, but something like a wiki would make it much easier to present the totality of everyone's input.
Yes, I think it's a good idea. I don't know if a wiki is the best solution. Anyway, I have just created one: http://boost-logging.wikispaces.com/
Tomorrow, I'll add the different requirements I read from previous post. Feel free to start now!
Great! I think, it's the only way to come to a viable solution. [snip]
So, these are just my thoughts on the issue. I would *love* to see a logging library in boost, and it always frustrates me (and, I imagine, others) that we can't seem to agree on often the simplest things. Maybe I'm way off target here, but I think a little high-level organization could yield big dividends in this case.
Yes. What do you think if some people interested in the definition of such library get together and form a group of interest? So the library do not depend from the motivation of an individual that could run out of gaz under the constant flow of Boost member's constructive but yet sometime discouraging critics. The team would write those requirements, propose them to the community and defend them in order to push this library into boost. I think this would require some boost authoritative figure to lead this effort. Anyone ?
Since I'm interested in having such a library in Boost, I'd be happy to participate. -- Best regards, Andrey mailto:andysem@mail.ru