Vinay Sajip <vinay_sajip at yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > I'd like to propose that some portion of the namespace be reserved > for use by logging in the standard library. If acceptable, all that > would need to be done would be to update the documentation to > indicate the namespace reservation. The actual use of the namespace > could be implemented as and when each module is changed to use the > logging module. > > The scheme of having all standard library logging under one umbrella > allows applications to be configured so that all library-level > messages can be routed to specific handlers, filtered simply at one > point, etc. I agree with this and was infact about to propose this to Matthew Barnes a short while ago. Good thing I read the list first. :-) > My preference for namespace reservation is that any logger name > beginning with "python." should be reserved for use by the standard > distribution. I think that each module should use an eponymous > logging channel name rooted in the hierarchy for the Python library - > e.g. asyncore would use "python.asyncore", etc. > > Matthew Barnes, who kicked off the original thread, prefers "stdlib" > as the prefix to use, rather than "python". No strong preference either way, but if someone were to hold a gun to my head, I'd scream... And then express my preference for 'python' as the root. But that's just the Java talking :-) Someone proposed an '_'. I don't know. My gut feeling is that it's too cryptic and Perl like. If you must have something, call it 'base' or 'python' or even 'stdlib'. But what do I know... --Arsalan
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4