loglite - A logging library
Hello, It's been a while since a discussion about logging hasn't ran on the boost mailing list. I have a small logging library implementing some of the requirements that were previously deemed desirable during the discussion we had here a couple of years ago. Find it here : http://code.google.com/p/loglite/ I've removed all mention to boost in the code, cause I've made some design choice that wouldn't fit with the boost philosophy. Please have a look and let me know what you think could be improved. An example : [example removed because of the now infamous anti-top-posting gmane feature] Regards, JD
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:08 PM, JD <jean.daniel.michaud@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
It's been a while since a discussion about logging hasn't ran on the boost mailing list. I have a small logging library implementing some of the requirements that were previously deemed desirable during the discussion we had here a couple of years ago.
Find it here : http://code.google.com/p/loglite/
The documentation link is not working for me? Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode
On Oct 27, 11:59 pm, Emil Dotchevski <emildotchev...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:08 PM, JD <jean.daniel.mich...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
It's been a while since a discussion about logging hasn't ran on the boost mailing list. I have a small logging library implementing some of the requirements that were previously deemed desirable during the discussion we had here a couple of years ago.
Find it here :http://code.google.com/p/loglite/
The documentation link is not working for me?
Fixed. Thanks. JD
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:14 PM, JD <jean.daniel.michaud@gmail.com> wrote:
It's been a while since a discussion about logging hasn't ran on the boost mailing list. I have a small logging library implementing some of the requirements that were previously deemed desirable during the discussion we had here a couple of years ago.
What is the rationale for attaching semantics to messages (log, warning, error, etc.)? I'm assuming the logging library isn't going to take action -- such as terminate the program in case of a fatal error -- so why not just define severity level? Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode
On Oct 28, 9:51 pm, Emil Dotchevski <emildotchev...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:14 PM, JD <jean.daniel.mich...@gmail.com> wrote:
It's been a while since a discussion about logging hasn't ran on the boost mailing list. I have a small logging library implementing some of the requirements that were previously deemed desirable during the discussion we had here a couple of years ago.
What is the rationale for attaching semantics to messages (log, warning, error, etc.)? I'm assuming the logging library isn't going to take action -- such as terminate the program in case of a fatal error -- so why not just define severity level?
I'm using semantics to satisfy the 2 requirements below : 7. Configurable log message attributes 9. Filtering support from the draft document written some time ago : http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?Boost.Logging Now, on the practical side, it helps route the traces differently for each sink. You would have all the logs in a file, but only the errors on the standard output. And that's different from the log level, that define the amount of log you want depending on the compilation configuration (debug/release). JD
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 6:19 AM, JD <jean.daniel.michaud@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 9:51 pm, Emil Dotchevski <emildotchev...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:14 PM, JD <jean.daniel.mich...@gmail.com> wrote:
It's been a while since a discussion about logging hasn't ran on the boost mailing list. I have a small logging library implementing some of the requirements that were previously deemed desirable during the discussion we had here a couple of years ago.
What is the rationale for attaching semantics to messages (log, warning, error, etc.)? I'm assuming the logging library isn't going to take action -- such as terminate the program in case of a fatal error -- so why not just define severity level?
I'm using semantics to satisfy the 2 requirements below : 7. Configurable log message attributes 9. Filtering support
Unless there is a use case for non-exclusive semantics (like needing to classify a logged message as both error and warning), I think it would be simpler to use different targets for messages depending on whether they are a warning or an error: WARN << "A warning"; ERR << "An error"; (sort of like std::cout vs. std::cerr) Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode
2009/10/27 JD <jean.daniel.michaud@gmail.com>:
Find it here : http://code.google.com/p/loglite/ [..] Please have a look and let me know what you think could be improved.
There are no templates provided, so it would be nice to have it separated into a source and a header file. To get it optionally header only, the header file could #include the source file, if an certain PP symbol is defined. Regards, -- Maik
On Oct 28, 1:27 am, Maik Beckmann <beckmann.m...@googlemail.com> wrote:
2009/10/27 JD <jean.daniel.mich...@gmail.com>:
Find it here :http://code.google.com/p/loglite/ [..] Please have a look and let me know what you think could be improved.
There are no templates provided, so it would be nice to have it separated into a source and a header file. To get it optionally header only, the header file could #include the source file, if an certain PP symbol is defined.
Good point. I'll do something about that ASAP. Thanks for your comment. JD
On Oct 28, 5:51 pm, Ruediger Berlich <ruediger.berl...@iwr.fzk.de> wrote:
JD wrote:
Please have a look and let me know what you think could be improved.
the SF page currently lists loglite as being covered by the LGPL, while some source files I looked at are under the Boost license. Is all of loglite under the Boost license ?
I haven't spend much time thinking about this but the story is, I wrote the library initially for boost and chose the boost license. When I checked in the code on googecode, the boost license was not available in the list. I wonder which one is more permissive. JD
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:17 PM, JD <jean.daniel.michaud@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 5:51 pm, Ruediger Berlich <ruediger.berl...@iwr.fzk.de> wrote:
JD wrote:
Please have a look and let me know what you think could be improved.
the SF page currently lists loglite as being covered by the LGPL, while some source files I looked at are under the Boost license. Is all of loglite under the Boost license ?
I haven't spend much time thinking about this but the story is, I wrote the library initially for boost and chose the boost license. When I checked in the code on googecode, the boost license was not available in the list. I wonder which one is more permissive.
The Boost license by far. LGPL is still not usable by most corporate entities.
On Oct 29, 2:04 am, OvermindDL1 <overmind...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:17 PM, JD <jean.daniel.mich...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 5:51 pm, Ruediger Berlich <ruediger.berl...@iwr.fzk.de> wrote:
JD wrote:
Please have a look and let me know what you think could be improved.
the SF page currently lists loglite as being covered by the LGPL, while some source files I looked at are under the Boost license. Is all of loglite under the Boost license ?
I haven't spend much time thinking about this but the story is, I wrote the library initially for boost and chose the boost license. When I checked in the code on googecode, the boost license was not available in the list. I wonder which one is more permissive.
The Boost license by far.
LGPL is still not usable by most corporate entities.
The boost license is still not available on google code. Correct me if I'm wrong but I though the LGPL was exactly made for that. The use of open source project in a commercial environment. But I'm open for counseling on that point, licensing is really not so important to me, as long as people doesn't claim ownership on the library ... JD
Hi JD, You might like to look at a similar library: http://bitbucket.org/edd/blah/wiki/Home I can't comment on whether if fulfils any of the requirements identified on this list as I built it as something to quickly scratch an itch. But it's nevertheless very flexible and has met my needs quite comfortably so far. Kind regards, Edd JD wrote:
Hello,
It's been a while since a discussion about logging hasn't ran on the boost mailing list. I have a small logging library implementing some of the requirements that were previously deemed desirable during the discussion we had here a couple of years ago.
Find it here : http://code.google.com/p/loglite/
I've removed all mention to boost in the code, cause I've made some design choice that wouldn't fit with the boost philosophy.
Please have a look and let me know what you think could be improved.
An example :
[example removed because of the now infamous anti-top-posting gmane feature]
Regards,
JD
On Oct 29, 7:44 am, "Tan, Tom (Shanghai)" <T...@husky.ca> wrote:
Please have a look and let me know what you think could be improved.
The first thing I notice is that it does not support std::wstring directly. It's a big problem in my case I use wide-character in all my applications, which simplifies dealing with UTF-16 adopted by Modern Windows platforms.
If I need to any string info from my program, I'll have to convert from UTF16(represented as std::wstring) to UTF8 so that it could be working well with LOGLITE. That's inconvenient.
Offtopic, I am expecting boost::filesystem V3 for this very same reason.
I'll have a look into that (Issue 23), thanks for the tip. JD
2009/10/27 JD <jean.daniel.michaud@gmail.com>:
Hello,
It's been a while since a discussion about logging hasn't ran on the boost mailing list. I have a small logging library implementing some of the requirements that were previously deemed desirable during the discussion we had here a couple of years ago.
Find it here : http://code.google.com/p/loglite/
I've removed all mention to boost in the code, cause I've made some design choice that wouldn't fit with the boost philosophy.
Please have a look and let me know what you think could be improved.
Hello, what about multi-threading issues? I didn´t find anything about this. R.P.
participants (7)
-
Edd Dawson -
Emil Dotchevski -
JD -
Maik Beckmann -
OvermindDL1 -
rodrigue pons -
Ruediger Berlich