Walter Bright wrote: > Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >> At my workplace we're using Google's logging library glog >> (http://google-glog.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/doc/glog.html), and the >> more I use it, the more I like it. It's simple, to the point, and >> effective. >> >> I was thinking it would be great to adapt a similar design into Phobos. >> There will be differences such as use of regular argument lists instead >> of << etc., but the spirit will be similar. What do you think? > > Ok, I'm going to get flamed for this, but, > > I don't get it > > I do logging all the time. It's usually customized to the particular problem > I'm trying to solve, so it involves uncommenting the right printf's and then > running it. Voila. Done.
One crucial step you require here is recompilation: that's not always an option. > The logging libraries I've seen usually required more time spent installing > the package, getting it to compile, reading the documentation, finding out it > doesn't work, rereading the documentation, etc., etc., than just putting in a > #...@$%^ printf, and Bang, it works, cut & print. imho a logging library should have log(msg) as a base case that just works. On the other hand, if your requirements do not go beyond printf then it is only natural any investment feel somewhat pointless. > Even worse, the logging libraries are loaded with a grab bag of trivial > features to try and puff it up into looking impressive. They always seemed to > me to be a solution in search of a problem. > > Shields up! what am I missing about this? I think there are two basic requirements that logging libraries fulfill: - tuning the amount of info that is logged dynamically (no recompilation) - getting good log reports (rotating logs, nicely structured output, etc.) If you don't need this, then a log library does not give that much value.