On 03/13/2010 07:14 PM, Daniel James wrote:
On 12 March 2010 22:48, Christian Holmquist<c.holmquist@gmail.com> wrote:
Barend Gehrels wrote:
Therefore I advocate a (as Rob states it nicely) *lightweight* logging utility and I had hoped that Boost.Log would fulfil this need. If it does not, it does not mean that Boost.Log is not good or not useful, of course. And maybe I would use it for my own programs. But it is not the library I'm looking for as a library writer.
I think that any reasonable log library must be compiled to it's own lib due to the intermodule singleton requirement. If some developers here think it's not an important feature or that programmers are better off without separate modules, please consider that users of your generic libraries may not be in the more trivial scenario with only one statically built .exe.
The suggestion is to have a lightweight logging library that can use different backends, so all you'd have to do is use a backend which meets your needs.
I wouldn't call that a "logging library" since it doesn't actually write logs. It's more like a binding or a wrapper.