Geoffrey Bache <gjb1...@users.sourceforge.net> added the comment: OK, I hadn't seen the "delay" parameter until now. I guess this is new in Python 2.6? Good that there is already a way to avoid lots of empty files, though it'll be a while before I can assume Python 2.6 unfortunately... that probably renders point (a) moot.
As for (b), do you not think a large number of users will not bother with the hierarchical aspect of the logging framework? I'd say you need to be pretty advanced/large scale before that becomes interesting. I don't really understand why accepting such a patch would be a problem, as it's a simple change that wouldn't break backwards compatibility. It's surely got to be better than exiting with a python stack, which is what happens today. (To give an idea of the bloat-factor, since migrating to the logging framework a typical configuration file for my system is now roughly 3 times the size it used to be for the same functionality) ---------- status: pending -> open _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue6136> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
