Hi, To those who managed to miss this very exciting submission, I would like to encourage to find some time to invest into reviewing it. Admitedly this is very open-bound problem domain and many people have different opinions on design requirements and possible interfaces. It makes it even more important to get large number of reviewers representing wide spectrum of users base. Please let me know about any time constrains, I might try to arange for the review period extension. Here is a copy of an oroginal announcements: *Description/Motivation:* Applications today are becoming increasingly complex. Part of making them easier to develop/maintain is to do logging. Logging allows you to see what happened in your application. It can be a great help when debugging and/or testing it. The great thing about logging is that you can use it on systems in production and/or in use - if an error occurs, by examining the log, you can get a picture of where the problem is. Good logging is mandatory in support projects, you simply can't live without it. Used properly, logging is a very powerful tool. Besides aiding debugging/ testing, it can also show you how your application is used (which modules, etc.), how time-consuming certain parts of your program are, how much bandwidth your application consumes, etc. - it's up to you how much information you log, and where. *Online docs:* http://torjo.com/log2/doc/html *Download:* Package for download is available here: http://torjo.com/code/log2.zip (version v0.22.7 is targeted for review) or you can get the library from svn http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/logging/ *Compilation:* The Boost Logging Lib has been tested with the following compilers: VC 2005 VC 2003 gcc 3.4.2 gcc 4.1 Compiling using bjam is covered here: http://torjo.com/log2/doc/html/miscelaneous.html#misc_bjam What to include in Review Comments ================================== Your comments may be brief or lengthy, but basically the Review Manager needs your evaluation of the library. If you identify problems along the way, please note if they are minor, serious, or showstoppers. Here are some questions you might want to answer in your review: * What is your evaluation of the design? * What is your evaluation of the implementation? * What is your evaluation of the documentation? * What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? * Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems? * How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? * Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? And finally, every review should answer this question: * Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? Be sure to say this explicitly so that your other comments don't obscure your overall opinion. Gennadiy Rozental - Review Manager -