Vinay Sajip wrote:
On Jul 14, 11:16 pm, Larry Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Vinay,
Thanks for your detailed explanation, but IMHO your suggested solution is almost
the opposite (right idea wrong direction) of what I'm looking for. Hypothetical
setup:
application1 - SocketHandlerloggingturned on
application2 - SocketHandlerloggingturned on
application3 - SocketHandlerloggingturned on
.
.
.
applicationN
monitoring app - ThreadingTCPServer target that Allows user to connect to ANY
running application and to view the real-time log messages. After monitoring,
it should be able to disconnect and connect to another application... The
clients (application1..N) never stop sending and don't ever send anything short
to disconnect themselves from the monitoring application. The disconnect/
reconnect is done at the monitoring app end based on input from the user. I
think each one would beloggingto a different port, but I never really quite
got that far. Perhaps there is some other way that I'm missing. It seems like
this is something that might be able to be "generalized" into a robust
monitoring application for an arbitrary number of asynchronously running
applications.
Each application's real-time log might be reached by clicking on a tab, menu,
etc.
Here's how I see it: the socket server listens, and receives logging
events from numerous applications in real time. If the server is
configured to monitor app1, then it quietly discards (or doesn't show
in the UI) all events from other apps - it only collects/shows events
from app1. When you click on a tab/menu/whatever to switch to
monitoring app2, then this information is used to tell the server to
discard (or not show) events from all apps except app2. You would of
course need to ensure the communication between UI thread and server
thread were done in a thread-safe manner.
As to the difficulty, I might just have a mental block but two modules that I've
had a real hard time getting my mind wrapped around is yourLoggingand Twisted.
They both have a multitude of options/ways to be used and not very many working
examples to work from. Might be a chance to make some money on a book. If it
was full of examples, I'd purchase it.
But there are numerous examples in the logging docs - the script you
quoted as having put together after several hours of Googling is
pretty much the same as the (working) version in the logging docs! If
you have reviewed the logging docs and find them lacking examples,
please provide more detail about the kind of examples you think are
missing. And I can't speak for Twisted, but it does a lot more than
logging - and I don't think there's enough complexity in Python
logging to warrant a paid-for book. (No doubt people will tell me if
they disagree!)
Best regards,
Vinay Sajip
Can multiple applications send SocketHandler logging records to the same socket
server on the same port simultaneously? If so, then I understand your answer
completely and will go in that direction. I guess I was trying to not use up
bandwidth/CPU cycles on the applications that weren't being actively monitored
by just not having the socket server connected to them.
I think you may be a 'little to close' to the (excellent) application you have
written to understand the steep learning curve that I see. You know the saying,
"Brain surgery is easy to a brain surgeon". I should point out that I'm no
newbie. I've used PIL, ReportLab, BeautifulSoup, Mechanize, Win32 extensions,
ElementTree and a whole host of other modules with less difficulty. Please
don't take this as anything more than an observation on my part. From what I
see, you have written (and generously donated) an extremely powerful library and
it is greatly appreciated. It is most likely just me.
As far as the book is concerned, I guess I'd purchase the only copy ;-).
I do appreciate your help very much.
Regards,
Larry
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
