Am 15.10.2013 15:31, schrieb ilya-stromberg:
On Tuesday, 15 October 2013 at 07:52:28 UTC, Robert Schadek wrote:
On 10/15/2013 04:06 AM, Eric Anderton wrote:
On Monday, 14 October 2013 at 11:39:52 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Here's what I think is missing:
- System log support (as others have mentioned). This would be syslog
or WEL, depending on environment.
This is sort of the idea of the design, I can't anticipate your needs
therefor I should not try. I should try to give you guidelines or a
framework to work against.
Totally disagree. We need a powerful logger, not only file logger.
I can implement a file logger myself for a few hours, and it will cover
90% of my needs. For other 10% I would like to have a standart logger
with advanced features like speed and reliability.
In this case I do agree with Robert that it will be better to keep the
std.log module basic and as dependency free as possible. The main
advantage of it is to enhance interoperability of different libraries
that use logging, but any advanced features can be implemented by
external libraries just as well (at least at the beginning). But of
course the general design allow for all complex use cases. And then over
time it may well show that it makes sense to include more standard
loggers. /IMHO
If you need help, please tell us. For example, jkm already implemented
syslog for Vibe.d with support files (via file streams) and the network
(via TCP or SSL streams):
https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/vibe.d/pull/294
It's under the MIT license, that similar to the Boost license.
Sönke Ludwig, can you allow to use syslog code for `std.logger` under
the Boost license? Robert Schadek can use it as initial point.
Should this be needed, it would be absolutely no problem. MIT -> Boost
works automatically and I would also happily transfer the code ownership
if needed.
