On Mar 28, 2012 8:08 PM, "Dmitri Pal" <dpal@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 03/28/2012 07:02 PM, david@lang.hm wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Dmitri Pal wrote:
> >
> >> On 03/28/2012 05:34 PM, david@lang.hm wrote:
> >>>
> >>> the counter-argument to this approach is that the log(e); approach
> >>> doesn't require a format parser and so a library that supports it but
> >>> doesn't support a logf("format",type,data..) format shoudl be able to
> >>> be a smaller library.
> >>>
> >>> David Lang
> >>
> >> Really not much of a gain.
> >
> > It depends on the environment and language. for a general purpose PC,
> > not a big deal, for an embedded device (think router or access point),
> > it may make more of a difference.
> >
> > David Lang
> We are talking about a difference in couple KB. With the current memory
> sizes of GBs on devices couple KB are within a margin of error.
> The code that I have in mind based on collection is lighter than any C++
> or Java for example and Mobile devices run Java or other object oriented
> languages.
> Though it is a valid concern it is not IMO a primary concern.
> You can always compile pieces out if the code is built in the right way.
>
> --
> Thank you,
> Dmitri Pal

Let us not get ahead of ourselves.

More libraries with differing requirements and features can and will be written. As long as the underlying event model and output formats are consistent, we should not be concerning ourselves too much with implementation specific details for specific use cases.