[Development] QLog ( Work on qDebug and friends)

[André Somers]

Op 2-2-2012 13:22, David Faure schreef:
> On Thursday 02 February 2012 12:52:38 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9?= Somers wrote:
>> I think there are plenty of implementations doing this already. Take a
>> look at QxtLogger for instance. It can be used with the output handler
>> just fine, but it also allows more finegrained access with more than
>> four levels. It also supports multiple outputs.
>> I see no need to make all this part of Qt *now*, especially not of core.
>> The very existence of external libraries that integrate with the current
>> structure shows that it is exendable enough.
> Well, Qxt and kdelibs are entire frameworks on top of Qt, but this makes the
> lib code very inconsistent, and not every little app wants to link to a big
> framework, especially for something as small as debug output handling.
> I want to get rid of KDE's kDebug so that there is less difference between "a
> Qt-based library" and "a KDE-based library". The last hurdle for that is:
>
> 1) showing more information (file, line, method, process name and PID) in the
> default message handler, probably based on env vars (easy to add now that
> QMessageLogContext has the necessary information).
>
> 2) support for debug areas. QLog's way of defining areas looks very nice, but
> it should be integrated with qDebug, as discussed previously.
>
> Again, this is about standardizing the debug statements in all qt-based libs,
> it doesn't prevent external loggers handling for the output in customized ways
> in specific apps or frameworks.
I did not mean that there is no need for more information or debug 
area's. I meant that the whole machinery for having different sinks for 
that information (network wat mentioned, rotating file logs, syslogs, 
whatever else) can be left to an external library. I think the 
_gathering_ of all that data (as an extension to qDebug) does belong in 
core, of course, but I think we should not go towards setting up a whole 
complicated output mechamism now.

I think you are focussing on making sure the information is all there to 
use (debug area's and the likes), so I think we agree. I got the feeling 
that BRM (Ben) was more interested in making the output more fancy, and 
that is where I object to putting this into Qt Core, or at least to 
putting that into Qt Core at this moment.

Sorry if my message was not clear before.

André