Vinay Sajip wrote: > There is a potential minefield here - if we are allowing any logging record > to be sent by wire to a remote logger, then the "user_info" needs to go > too - and what if something in it can't be pickled? Given that it is really > important that the logging system is silent except when explicitly asked to > do something by a logging call, exceptions caught in the logging system are > generally ignored by design. This means that pickling exceptions would not > be raised, and I foresee difficulties for developers... The idea of allowing > arbitrary objects into the LogRecord is very powerful and has much to > commend it, but I think the pickling problem may need to be solved first. You could have the logging methods return an int/bool, 1 if succesfully logged, 0 on failure. Let the caller decide what to do. You could even return a failure object or None. The failure object would contain (or be) the exception/problem. Neal
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