From: pasa@lib.hu   
      
   On 12/30/2012 9:28 AM, Balog Pal wrote:   
   >> On 12/28/2012 10:34 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:   
   >>> This is the nub of the argument, but nothing posted so far backs   
   >>> up the assertion.  The preceding posts all demonstrate the use of   
   >>> different loggers.   
   >>   
   >> It seems self-evident to me, but I'll try to explain anyway.   
   ...   
   > The only test scenario hurt is the one we already discussed, if you   
   > launch the cases in multiple threads instead of sequentially.   
   >   
   >> * Therefore if you have two tests that need to talk to different   
   >>    loggers they either must be in separate executables (in the   
   >>    first case) or at least can't run in separate threads (in the   
   >>    second case).   
   >>   
   >> What am I missing?   
   >   
   > The last point is correct formally. But IME it is hardly a practical   
   > problem, because:   
      
   Actually I take even that back. While the simplest form just using a   
   plain pointer really fails, you can:   
      
   - make that pointer be in thread-local storage   
   - or not having that, can use a synchrtonized version of a   
   map as replacement.   
      
   Then the presented examples work exactly the same as the PFA version   
   again, behavior-wise.   
      
      
   (and Happy New Year, everyone ;*)   
      
      
   --   
         [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]   
         [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)