Re: Proposal for 2.8: Glog

[Matthias Clasen <mclasen redhat com>]

On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 10:17 +0200, Maciej Katafiasz wrote:
> Dnia 04-05-2005, śro o godzinie 01:50 -0400, Matthias Clasen napisał:
> > > here's a proposal for addition to Glib 2.8, named Glog.
> > > Bunch of details:
> > > 
> > 
> > The two immediate questions I have:
> > 
> > - How does this relate to the existing GLib logging facility
> >   (g_log, g_warning, etc) ?
> 
> It's complementary. Existing logging is mostly for detecting and
> reporting programming errors, and is not intended for heavy-duty tracing
> of normal execution. 

Where did you find that g_log mission statement ?

> Glog has flexible filtering of shown info, and
> supports notion of categories, which makes it usable for dealing with
> excessive amounts of data tracing tends to generate.

If log categories are valuable, how about adding simple category support
to g_log, instead of adding a clone of the (IMO) somewhat overengineered
log4x stuff ?

> > - What do we win by putting yet another log4x clone into 
> >   Glib instead of simply using log4c ?
> 
> Dunno what log4c is :). What we win by Glog is closely coupled with Glib
> piece of code (it's not as much a separate library as extension to
> Glib), following the same design, and known to work very well with
> Glib-based code. Also, it's thoroughly tested, known to work on every
> platform Glib works on, and you know the maintainers, so know who to
> beat up when something goes wrong ;)

You should probably google for log4j, log4c, log4c++, etc then, to learn
what you are proposing as a GLib addition, then.

Matthias