>>>>> "JH" == Jeremy Hylton <jeremy@zope.com> writes:
JH> I've never used a logging library before I used Zope, and
JH> never really thought I needed one. (Perhaps it would have
JH> been useful in Grail.) It seems that prints are good enough
JH> for small applications and that more complex logging libraries
JH> are mostly useful for sophisticated applications. If logging
JH> is mostly useful for sophisticated applications, it would be a
JH> mistake to declare their requirements as too complex. On the
JH> other hand, maybe Zope should continue to use its own logging
JH> tools.
I think Jeremy has a good point here. IME, logging itself is
unnecessary for for many Python programs, be they library modules or
simple scripts. Once you get into doing things like writing web
applications, or long running servers, where you typically don't have
a stdout or stderr, the print approach fails, and you end up inventing
a logging mechanism. I thought/hoped the whole point of this PEP was
to give such application authors a common way to spell its logging
facilities, so that end-users can have a common way to configure the
logging of the applications they're installing and administering.
All one line hacks eventually turn into scripts. All scripts
eventually turn into multi-user applications. All multi-user
applications eventually turn into web apps. All web apps eventually
become distributed.
;)
-Barry
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