Use other libraries for logging?

[jcguu95]

In any case, I think it is better to use other libraries as much as possible, and cut down the core of mahogany to its absolute essentials. In the long run, modularity makes maintaining the code base much easier.

I recommend using log4cl.

[sdilts]

log4cl looks really cool. Having the package / function being included in the message looks really useful.

Aside from enjoying the experience of rolling my own, the main reason I didn't pick another logging library from the get-go is that none of the ones I found supported colored terminal output for different log levels. I could be convinced to use something without it, but I honestly struggle to parse logs without it.

Is that something that log4cl supports?

[jcguu95]

That's a good point. I never relied on the colors, but now I think about it that's very nice. I just did a quick search in log4cl, and it only has color supports for slime (so you need to be using emacs).

Totally understood! But would you be ok if I separate that as a different asdf system, while leave your logger code in the main repo for now?

---

Reasons: separated as systems > separated as packages

1. Encapsulation: You can change the logger's implementation (e.g., switching from printing to a file to a memory buffer) without touching the WM code.

2. Compile Times: If you change a macro in the logger, ASDF should intelligently recompile only the parts of Mahogany that depend on it.

3. Testing: You can write a separate test suite for the logger that doesn't require the X11 server or the WM to be running.