RetroSearch Browse

Wed Dec 8 20:14:25 CET 2010 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-December/106590.html

    >> On a slightly tangential note, what do you think of the idea of
    >> library code including info or debug level logging? In effect,
    >> tracing and diagnostic code built in and available simply by changing
    >> the logging level?

    Vinay> That's how it works right now. You get info() and debug()
    Vinay> messages sent via calls in library code, just by changing the
    Vinay> level of (say) the root logger.

There can be performance implications if you log heavily.  I don't know how
the code is organized, but functionally these two calls are equivalent:

    >>> logging.error("error 1 2 3 %s" % "yup")
    ERROR:root:error 1 2 3 yup
    >>> logging.error("error 1 2 3 %s", "yup")
    ERROR:root:error 1 2 3 yup

The second form should be preferred in library code as long as the format
string expansion is deferred until after the test is made to emit the
message.

Skip

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-December/106590.html below:

[Python-Dev] Using logging in the stdlib and its unit tests