On 2007-04-03, Caleb Epstein <caleb.epstein@gmail.com> wrote:
... I think I took this problem too lightly. We shall not focus on implementation at first but more on the requirements. Austin Bingham, in
Requirements are tough, because everyone (including me!) has different ones. I think it might be more productive to try and identify the core concepts required to implement the various requested features and come up with clear specifications for their interfaces. Then take these
FWIW, figuring out the "requested features" is what I figured the first step would need to be. Some people need complex routing and filtering, others need file-based configuration, and others will tell you that these features are a waste of time. If we can get a handle on what people want and then start to couple that information with implementation ideas, we'll have made some real progress. I just want to contrast this with what I see on the list. Every other week or so, someone submits a logging library that "they've been working on for a while" and which "has great features X, Y, and Z". Some people like it, others point out its failings, and the matter never gets any further. I simply don't think that this is an efficient way to zero in on a useful, generally acceptable logging system. -- Austin Bingham Signal & Information Sciences Laboratory Applied Research Laboratories, University of Texas at Austin 10000 Burnet Rd., Austin, TX 78758 email: abingham@arlut.utexas.edu cell: (512) 799-2444 office: (512) 835-3832