Good point and I agree that most users don't care and just want it to work... I'll change the API to reflect this.
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 6:09 AM, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote: >> On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 11:03 PM, dsimcha <dsim...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > Ok, there's clearly been some misunderstanding here. My real point was, >> > why do you need this threading at all? >> >> It's definitely overkill for a single threaded application, but for things >> like the application I'm working on, which is multithreaded and already >> uses message passing between threads, I think it would fit in quite >> nicely. My question would be whether it's pluggable enough to allow the >> simple case of a single threaded program that doesn't need message passing >> to be implemented. > > Honestly, I would hope that whatever the logging did with threads would be > entirely internal and invisible. At most, the logger should indicate which > thread the log message came from. How it's thread safe should be invisible and > irrelevant to anyone using the logger. Why should I care whether it's using > message passing, shared variables, or whatever internally? Ideally, it > wouldn't need to worry about threading at all, but I'm not sure how likely > that is. I believe that writeln should be thread-safe, but I'm not sure that > file stuff would be, and presumably the logger needs to be able to do both of > those. > > - Jonathan M Davis >