Early review of std.logger

[Robert Schadek]

On 10/15/2013 03:31 PM, ilya-stromberg wrote:
> 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.
I bet your 10% and mine 10% do not overlap. And than either you or I
will complain about it.
>
> 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.
Before any time is spent to implement x number of logger the design must
be done.