[log] RFC: An alternative implementation is coming up
Hi, After more than a year of development my implementation of logging library is coming to its first release. Here are some feature highlights: * independent logger/sink and multimodule-friendly design with great extensibility potential * support for both embedded and global loggers * full-fledged attribute support (global, thread-specific and logger-specific attributes supported) * filtering and formatting support, including lambda expressions for filters and formatters construction * support for writing log to streams (files, console), rotating files support * support for Syslog API * support for library initialization helpers, including settings file support * thread safety support with least possible locking * wide-character logging support The library documentation can be found online on SourceForge: http://tinyurl.com/5e4fd7 Some requirements background can also be found on this Wiki: http://tinyurl.com/2fndfg The library code is quite stable, however, minor changes are still possible. The code can be checked out from the SourceForge CVS, the detailed instructions can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/6k9vvp There are currently no automatic tests, but there are some examples, which were compiled and run on Linux and Windows. I would like to see what Boost community thinks of this library, whether it worth submitting, has any critical flaws or any other thoughts. I also would appreciate if Gennadiy Rozental and John Torjo expressed their thoughts on possibility to review this library in parallel with John's solution, which is currently in the review queue. I would gladly discuss this privately, if they find it more suitable.
On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 21:05:13 +0200, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Andrey,
[...]After more than a year of development my implementation of logging library is coming to its first release. Here are some feature highlights:
I just read the entire documentation of your logging library - it sounds very good! I didn't write any code and didn't use your library yet but will definitely do. So far I've only one question regarding BOOST_LOG_DECLARE_GLOBAL_LOGGER. Having read http://boost-log.sourceforge.net/libs/log/doc/html/advanced/advanced.html#ad... I understand that this macro is used to help developers not to violate the ODR. Having read the entire documentation I'm a bit surprised though that it's used everywhere by default (like in the tutorial). I would expect that by default developers can define a global logger with src::severity_logger_mt lg; _unless_ they violate the ODR. _Then_ they can use BOOST_LOG_DECLARE_GLOBAL_LOGGER. Either I missed something and I always should use BOOST_LOG_DECLARE_GLOBAL_LOGGER or the library author (you :) thought that developers too often violate the ODR without noticing and better always use the macro even if it isn't really necessary? Boris
[...]
On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 21:05:13 +0200, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]The library code is quite stable, however, minor changes are still possible. The code can be checked out from the SourceForge CVS, the detailed instructions can be found here:
Andrey, can you please put a zip archive of your library somewhere so it can be downloaded directly? I don't use CVS and don't want to install a CVS client just to download some files. I found a link at the bottom of http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?Boost.Logging but I'm not sure if the "preliminary library implementation in the Boost.Vault" is the latest version of your library? Boris
[...]
Boris wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 21:05:13 +0200, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]The library code is quite stable, however, minor changes are still possible. The code can be checked out from the SourceForge CVS, the detailed instructions can be found here:
Andrey,
can you please put a zip archive of your library somewhere so it can be downloaded directly? I don't use CVS and don't want to install a CVS client just to download some files. I found a link at the bottom of http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?Boost.Logging but I'm not sure if the "preliminary library implementation in the Boost.Vault" is the latest version of your library?
I've renewed the archive in the Vault. The source code can be downloaded with this link: http://tinyurl.com/5lgvnq
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrey Semashev" <andrey.semashev@gmail.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 9:05 PM Subject: [boost] [log] RFC: An alternative implementation is coming up
I would like to see what Boost community thinks of this library, whether it worth submitting, has any critical flaws or any other thoughts.
I also would appreciate if Gennadiy Rozental and John Torjo expressed their thoughts on possibility to review this library in parallel with John's solution, which is currently in the review queue. I would gladly discuss this privately, if they find it more suitable.
Hi Andrey, Is this a formal review request? BTW, which is the John's solution that will be review (for the moment I see only log2 which was already rejected)? Best, Vicente
vicente.botet wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrey Semashev" <andrey.semashev@gmail.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 9:05 PM Subject: [boost] [log] RFC: An alternative implementation is coming up
I would like to see what Boost community thinks of this library, whether it worth submitting, has any critical flaws or any other thoughts.
I also would appreciate if Gennadiy Rozental and John Torjo expressed their thoughts on possibility to review this library in parallel with John's solution, which is currently in the review queue. I would gladly discuss this privately, if they find it more suitable.
Hi Andrey,
Is this a formal review request?
No, not yet. There are some issues I would like to address before the review. However, I plan to request a formal review this winter.
BTW, which is the John's solution that will be review (for the moment I see only log2 which was already rejected)?
There's another request in the review queue. Essentially, this should be an updated version of the rejected library. Unfortunately, I haven't got any feedback from John or Gennadiy, so I can't tell anything else about it.
participants (3)
-
Andrey Semashev -
Boris -
vicente.botet