On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 10:48 +0000, Vinay Sajip wrote: > Wolodja Wentland <wentland <at> cl.uni-heidelberg.de> writes: [ HTMLHandler, multiple configuration files ]
OK! I agree that these parts are hard to standardise and do not really belong in the *logging* module. Maybe a kind soul implements a "configuration" module in the future that accepts configuration files in a plethora of formats and uses dictionaries as the lingua franca for final configuration. > > I will give an example.. The basic problem I have with *all* config file > > based configuration right now is that I have to *register* every single > > handler/filter with a logger *within* the configuration or their > > configuration will be lost. > You are right, unless handlers (and filters, formatters etc.) are given > names which can be used to refer to them across multiple configuration calls. > This is something I am thinking about and will probably update PEP 391 > with my thoughts. [ usage example ] > I think your way of working is entirely reasonable, but IMO is not likely to > be so widespread as to make it worthwile baking into the stdlib. You can > easily build your own configuration from which you build the dict to pass > to dictConfig(). Are these two statements not a bit contradictory? If it would be possible to refer to all major components in logging by *unique* names would that not mean that the usage example I gave is possible? I think we managed to single out the sole requirement I would have towards 'logging' that is missing today. Id est: The possibility to refer/retrieve/... all major components used by logging (loggers, handlers, filters, formatters, adaptors) by a *unique* name. That would enable the developer to deal with them in a consistent way irregardless of the way they were initially defined (configuration file, programmatically). Is this way to deal with logging really that uncommon? I guess I have to read a lot code to see how other people do it as this would be the way that feels most natural to me. BTW, the LoggerAdaptor class looks really useful. I just discovered it and I have the feeling that I might use it frequently. > > * Logging Expert > > * Developer > > * User > Those three roles appear reasonable, but I would say that the expert-designed > blocks would be specialised handlers, filters and formatters. That's not a > full-time job, though ;-) I completely agree. I know that the logging expert and the developer will most likely be the same person. I just wanted to point out that the design of the logging system and its components is a different step in program development than the usage of said system by a developer and different users. Thanks again for taking this discussion to the users list. I could have commented in the -dev thread, but did not. (I ask myself: Why?) I therefore appreciate it a lot that you try to figure out your users requirements before implementing them! I just love open source software! Have a great day and let me know whatever you come up with. Wolodja
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list