On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Vinay Sajip <vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm planning to make some smallish changes to logging in Python 3.2, please > see > > http://plumberjack.blogspot.com/2010/09/improved-queuehandler-queuelistener.html > > If you're interested, I'd be grateful for any feedback you can give.
Looks like a good idea to me - I have a (C++) logging system at work that pushes some of the I/O bound tasks out to a separate thread for similar reasons. To further reduce overhead, would it make sense for the signature of the QueueListener constructor to be (queue, *handlers)? (Providing the ability to add and remove handlers post-construction seems unnecessary, since you can add or remove new listeners to the original queue to get a similar effect without worrying about synchronisation of access to the list of handlers) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
