Robert Kern <robert.kern <at> gmail.com> writes: > > I really don't understand how this view can be consistent with the > practice of adding NullHandler to loggers. If this message is so important > to prevent misconfiguration, then why should a library author decide to > silence it for his users?
Because the application developer knows more about the end-user audience for their application, they are better placed to know how logging should work for their application. It's not an error for a particular application developer to decide that nothing should be produced by logging for a particular application; they (particularly when casual users) would be confused by the misconfiguration message due to logging by a library they're using. The library author's users are the application developers who use the library, not the end users who use their applications. Sometimes they're the same people, I know, but I just think of them as wearing different hats :-) > [...] I strongly suspect that almost all configurations include a > catch-all root logger and that most of those *only* consist of that > root logger. That doesn't seem right: your comment might be conflating loggers with handlers. The common pattern would be (or should be) to name loggers according to __name__ in the modules which use logging, but only configure *handlers* for the root logger. That way, logging messages indicate their origin (because of the __name__ convention) but you only need to add handlers at the root logger to capture all the logging information. > Same mistake. I intended the correction to apply to all such statements in > my post. Oh, right. I thought this was a different case. > I think that boilerplate should be minimized. If using getLogger() should > almost always be followed by adding a NullHandler, then it should be the > default behavior. The easiest way to achieve this effect is to simply not > issue the warning message. getLogger() should NOT "almost always be followed by adding a NullHandler". For example, in Django, only the logger named "django" would have that handler added; no other Django logger (e.g. "django.db.models") would need to have that handler added. Regards, Vinay Sajip _______________________________________________ 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
