Guido van Rossum wrote: > I'm sorry that this seems to be a thread with one message per month! > I'll try to be more responsive from now on, the big Zope projects that > were keeping me busy have given me some slack time. Great. >> I will update the docstrings as per your feedback. > > Great! (When can we see a new release on > http://www.red-dove.com/python_logging.html > ?) I was waiting for your feedback about the packaging - the docstrings have been changed but I wanted to roll everything into the next release. Speaking of which... > I would feel much less strongly about this if several of the > additional things could be moved to separate files without making it a > package. > [stuff snipped] > This is an example of something that I'd like to see relegated to a > separate file. It really looks like fileConfig(), listen() and > stopListening() are a separate feature bundle that looks like it is > a specific example application rather than a core feature of the > logging module. It certainly doesn't appear in PEP 282. Maybe the > socket handler classes belong in the same category. > > Of course, the same can be said about all Handler subclasses except > StreamHandler. Only StreamHandler is referenced by basicConfig(). > Perhaps these should all (except StreamHandler) be moved to separate > files? This sounds like a reason to make it a package. The main > logging code could be in the __init__.py file -- there's no rule that > says __init__.py should be empty or short! How about this suggestion? We could leave the core code in the existing module, "logging". This would include a minimal set of handlers, and all the Filters, and I think StreamHandler and FileHandler should be in here. All other handlers would live in "logging.handlers". As for configuration - basicConfig() could live in "logging" and any other configuration code in "logging.config". If the above seems a good idea, please let me know and I'll refactor accordingly - then the next release will (hopefully) be in the next 2-3 weeks. > PS. In your comments you seem fond of the word "needful". I've rarely > heard that word -- perhaps it is archaic or common only in India? I only found 2 uses of "needful" - in BufferingHandler and ConfigStreamHandler. It's the whole phrase "do the needful", which I think is peculiar to England but has its share of users on the subcontinent :-) Regards Vinay Sajip
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