On Sep 30, 1:20 pm, Russell Keith-Magee <freakboy3...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I was thinking that a calming, motherly "there there, it's all right, > the boogeymonster isn't real" would do the trick :-)
I'll see what I can do... > > I suppose this is a big part of the problem. The logging module isn't > a trivial API, and you really need to understand how it works before > you can use it effectively. What is needed is a really good tutorial; > what we have is a reference guide with a little bit of a tutorial > tacked on the front. The reference is needed, but the tutorial is much > more important from the point of view of getting the message out and > encouraging people to use the API. > You're absolutely right about this. Hopefully working on this with Doug Hellmann (from whose PyMOTW the initial tutorial bits came) will yield some improvements. > >http://plumberjack.blogspot.com/2009/09/python-logging-101.html > > I saw this, and yes, it's a good start. However, it (or a version of > it) needs to be formalized and in the official docs, not lingering on > a blog somewhere. You're right, and that will (hopefully) happen at some point not too far in the future. > Agreed, it's important that the simple use case is demonstrated. > However, in the docs, the simple example is then used as a staging > ground for demonstrating rotating file loggers and other things that a > simple example doesn't need. > > Logging is a complex topic. A simple example doesn't provide the > complexity that is required to demonstrate the strengths of the API. > The simple example is useful for demonstrating the "hello world" case, > but not for demonstrating more complex features. I get it now, thanks for clarifying. > On the subject of examples, another suggestion: I'm wary of examples > that try to be too smart. Take the logging level demonstration (the > 5th code snippet in 16.6.1.1). This code very cleverly writes a script > that can take a command line argument and turn it into a logging > level, but in being clever, it obscures the point of the example - > that you can output log messages at any level, but the configuration > determines which ones are output. When you're trying to demonstrate > the simple stuff, the less extraneous detail, the better. The next > example (which demonstrates multiple loggers) is much clearer - it's > obvious from first inspection what the code is doing. Okay. I'll see about sorting this out as part of a larger makeover. > To avoid a dependency on the logging module, thereby keeping Adrian happy :-) > > Seriously - I really do want to find out the nature of Adrian's > objection to logging (if it is even current). I'd rather have an > actual discussion than dance around a strawman. It would perhaps be a problem if it was an external dependency, rather than an integral part of Python. You're right, though - let's see what he has to say. Regards, Vinay Sajip --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
