On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:21:13 +0100, <Vladimir.Batov@wrsa.com.au> wrote: Vladimir,
[...]Firstly, it certainly seems very rich in features and configurable. That is certainly a huge plus for such a library as logging. However, I was truly overwhelmed by the documentation, the interface and the deployment examples. I seemed to be reading about familiar concepts -- severity levels, sinks, filters, formatters, streams/channels. However, after all that I did not feel an inch closer to actually deploying your library. I
If I had to explain Andrey's logging library in one sentence: The logger object routes messages to sinks based on attributes and their values.
consider myself a moderately intelligent person but the seeming complexity felt quite intimidating. Somehow other implementations I read about (J.Torjo's, log4cpp, log4j, a bunch of loggers at SourceForge) went down much easier.
From what I understand it would help you if the documentation contained a small comparison between Andrey's library and some other well-known logging libraries? I ask as in my opinion the documentation is one of the better ones of the Boost C++ libraries. I had also been using J.Torjo's logging library before I switched to Andrey's. Comparing the two libraries I like Andrey's more as the concepts Andrey's library is based on seem to be an added value. In J.Torjo's library a logger is like a stream: When you pass a message to a logger you know where it will be written to. As that is something I can do with standard streams, too, I actually expect from a logging library to introduce new concepts. Boris