On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 4:53 PM, David Faure <[email protected]> wrote: > However I would like this to be called qDebug(AREA) rather than qLog(AREA). > Otherwise we are presenting a confusing situation of two competing debug- > output frameworks inside Qt.
Agreed. Extra functionality can be built on top of what is there already. Adding categories, etc, via overloads is fine, IMO. Things like file logging, socket logging, etc... need a bit more consideration, but are also not something that is unthinkable to have done as extensions of the existing system, which also handily provides log *levels*, even if not categories. (think: qDebug(SOCKETS) << "Socket created"; .... qWarning(SOCKETS) << "Couldn't connect, did something break?"; type things) Something related I'd like to stress here (not to anyone in particular): when you write this stuff in applications, it can be changed at will. But when it's in Qt, you can't change it for a very, very, very long time (if ever) if you suddenly decide the implementation isn't ideal or you could do better. It's better to not jam the moon on a stick into it from the word go, to take some time, and do it properly. My point is: feature requests are great, I'm sure we'd all adore them, but let's rush into implementing without considering them carefully :) _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
