On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:02:10 +0200, Stefan Shishkov <stefan@b.obs.bg> wrote:
I noticed that file_appender is a base class in a hierarchy with virtual functions but without a virtual destructor. Is this OK?.
Thanks for the extra eyes. This was just an oversight. I've now split this code into separate headers: * appenders.hpp is a convenience header that includes the next three headers. * file_appender.hpp defines logfile and the basic file_appender. No dependencies other than boost::log. * rolling_file_appender.hpp defines rolling_file_appender which rolls over files when they exceed a maximum size and keeps a maximum number of backups. Depends on boost::filesystem. * periodic_file_appender.hpp defines periodic_file_appender, which behaves like rolling_file_appender but uses a time interval and not file size to determine when the logfile should be rolled-over. It does not implement any policy in terms of numbers of files. It could perhaps be called "periodic_rolling_file_appender" but that name seems obnoxiously long. There are also some convenience functions for creating periodic_file_appender objects with commonly used frequencies (hour, day, week, month and year). No dependencies other than boost::log. * filename_factory.hpp defines filename_factory_strftime method (name change). No dependencies other than boost::log. I'm not sure the "filename factory" function and this last header really belong in the boost::log namespace. It is just a simple transformation on a string and can probably be templated on the string type. Where would be the right place for something like this (it needs to be accessible to callers, so a nested detail namespace is not appropriate)? Perhaps boost::utility? -- Caleb Epstein caleb dot epstein at gmail dot com