Dear all, thanks to everybody who replied to my question.
On 15 Dec 2007, at 16:34, Kent Johnson wrote: > Ricardo Aráoz wrote: >> Kent Johnson wrote: >>> I don't know the answer, but it has nothing to do with the logging >>> module. The question is, can the same file reliably be opened >>> twice for >>> writing in the same module. >> >> Well, the question would actually be if the logging module is smart >> enough to find out that both your filehandlers are referring to >> the same >> file and open it only once. > > A quick glance at the logging module shows that it is not that > smart. It > just opens the file twice; hence my original question. > To summarise the situation: the logging module is not clever enough to detect that I am opening the same file twice. If I use 'w' as the opening mode, then I know (and have an example program for this) that the logging 'fails': I suppose this can be tracked to the first part of the log file being overriden when the second filehandler attempts to log its first message, and thus opens the file (again) in 'w' mode. Using 'a' (append) or 'a+' (?) *seems* to solve this problem but we are still short of knowing as to whether this is guaranteed to work (on all platforms...) or whether it just happened to be okay on Mac OS X and (Debian) Linux (on which I have tested this). I think my example raises another question (in particular in context with openening the files in 'w' mode): would it be worth contacting the developers of the logging module to suggest that it - tracks which files it writes to and - warns if the same file is opened twice (or more ofter) using 'w'? Alternatively, one could enhance the internal logic of the logging module so that it is aware of the same file being used twice (or more times) so that it only opens the file once, but I suppose this raises some other questions (if the two filehandlers have been given different opening modes, say 'a' and 'w', which one should it take when opening the file only once?). Therefore, just issueing a warning may be the better solution: should be easy to implement, doesn't change the interface, and prevents (naive) users (like myself) from wasting time trying to track down the problem of the beginning of the log file missing. What is the recommended method to make such a suggestion to the python team, or the people who look after the logging module? Many thanks, Hans > Kent > _______________________________________________ > Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor > > > -- Hans Fangohr School of Engineering Sciences University of Southampton Phone: +44 (0) 238059 8345 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.soton.ac.uk/~fangohr _______________________________________________ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
