Early review of std.logger

[Sönke Ludwig]

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.