Geoffrey Bache <gjb1...@users.sourceforge.net> added the comment: My comp.lang.python thread is here:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/browse_thread/thread/a0c35c3c9ad210a4 It was met by deafening silence though. I don't see why a simple format would need to be customer-specific. log4py's isn't/wasn't and that worked just fine. It did support logging to more than files but its configuration file scaled down much more gracefully for simple usage, mostly because it didn't expose its internal design like the logging one does. It had only loggers instead of loggers/handlers/formatters. But log4py is discontinued now as a project and I can't face maintaining my own copy of it any more. I'm getting the feeling you're just trying to fob me off here. You dismiss the threads I found as being "mostly about other things" or "not mentioning specifics". That may be so, but the fact is, in those threads you have five other people expressing in one way or another that the configuration file is too complex - and I'm sure I could find more if you really want. If you prefer to ignore them and me there's not much point in discussing further. I'm not demanding that you do this work. I'm simply trying to raise the issue and asking you to consider accepting such a patch if I or somebody else produce it. ---------- 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
