Hello, Caleb! You wrote on Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:59:32 -0400: CE> I'd argue strongly against basing any Boost.Logging library on any of CE> the multitude of C++ ports of log4j (of which there are at least CE> log4cpp, log4cplus, log4cxx). They are generally bloated, suffer from CE> a horribly baroque runtime configuration, I can say only about log4cpp. I don't see any problem with it runtime configuration. I can control all aspects of logging. Yes, sometimes function arguments and return values surprise me, but this can be easily fixed to be more natural. Also I never do configuring by hands - only from config files. Recently I added factories into library to make writting different kind of configurators easy task. About bloating. I know every peace of library and can say that there is samething not needed. CE> and do not make good use of C++ language features. About what features you talk? All you need is: 1) configure - this is one call, say `logging::configure(filename)`. 2) Do logging - `logger.error('Somethis wrong');`, `logger.infoStream() << "Value is " << value";`. What else do you need? CE> Some of them are CE> also more or less dead projects (e.g. Apache's log4cxx's home page CE> mentions that "At this point, log4cxx-0.9.7 is substantially out of CE> date, has known serious deficiencies" but no successor version has been CE> released in over two years. Last release of log4cpp was at 2005/07/29 and it is not dead. With best regards, Konstantin Litvinenko.