Wiadomość napisana przez Antoine Pitrou w dniu 2010-12-07, o godz. 22:19:
>> If you're writing an application then the "No handlers could be found"
>> message is actually useful because there's hardly any reason no to include
>> one.
>
> Why do you say that? Not having to add a handler is certainly useful
> when you are doing some quick prototyping or simply writing a script
> (situations in which you still want to get error messages displayed
> properly by the libraries).
>
>> One way or the other, we should really default to the convenience of
>> application developers. This is currently the case.
>
> Why wouldn't there be a default convenience of printing out errors?
> It's already the case for the root handler, so why would other handler
> be treated differently?
>
>>>> import logging
>>>> logging.debug("foo")
>>>> logging.error("bar")
> ERROR:root:bar
If you're arguing that instead of writing "No handler", our logging library
could just as easily default to a simplistic stderr handler for errors, then I
agree. Both the convenience and consistency arguments you provided are
convincing. See, that was 3 times a con* in one sentence!
Then again, warning an application developer that some handler is not
configured that probably should be, is still valuable IMHO. Unless explicitly
silenced.
--
Best regards,
Łukasz Langa
tel. +48 791 080 144
WWW http://lukasz.langa.pl/
_______________________________________________
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
