RetroSearch Browse

Wed Dec 8 01:01:25 CET 2010 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-December/106541.html

Barry Warsaw <barry <at> python.org> writes:

> 
> On Dec 07, 2010, at 04:59 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> 
> >As a library author, I would dearly love to just add logging liberally
> >without placing any additional burden to the users of my library. If my users
> >wants to read those logs, he will configure logging. If he doesn't, he
> >won't. With the current behavior, I can't do that. If I add logging, he has
> >to add code just to silence a message that is meaningless to him (after I get
> >the support emails asking if things are broken and explain how to silence
> >it). If I add a NullHandler, I remove the ability for him to use
> >logging.basicConfig(), the easiest and most straightforward way for him to
> >add logging to his application.
> 
> +1
> 

Barry, if you mean +1 as in "I agree this is how it should work", then we're all
agreed. But I think Robert is wrong that NullHandler precludes use of
basicConfig - when NullHandler is added to a library logger (rather than the
root logger), basicConfig() works as expected. See the mylib/myapp example in my
other post on this thread.

Regards,

Vinay Sajip

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-December/106541.html below:

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