On 02/24/10 13:53, Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 02/24/10 02:44 PM, Virginia Wray wrote:
>> On 02/24/10 13:13, Shawn Walker wrote:
>>> On 02/24/10 01:59 PM, Virginia Wray wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> The other issue that neither of the syslog facilities can meet is the
>>>> need to log at more granular levels in components
>>>> within applications. Syslog defines the level of logging at the
>>>> application level, and that can't be modified within
>>>> components of the application, which is something we want to be
>>>> able to
>>>> do within the installer.
>>>>
>>>> If anyone has any comments or questions about this, please let me
>>>> know.
>>>
>>> Is the intent to use syslog specifically, or (hopefully) use the
>>> python logging module in combination with the sysloghandler?
>>>
>>> I'd strongly suggest using the python logging module as that allows
>>> you to choose syslog or anything else you want for output, as well as
>>> provide your own custom log handling. As a bonus, it's also
>>> thread-safe...
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>> Hi Shawn -
>>
>> In the design document for the logging framework, I referenced the
>> Python Logger as one of the potential choices, but I didn't make any
>> reference to other possible choices.
>> Someone asked why we weren't considering syslog, so I wanted to respond
>> to that question. I'll flesh out the design decisions, including which
>> logging facility, in the next revision of the document.
>>
>> Let me know if you have any more questions.
>
> Ah, ok. Well just be aware that the python logging module has a
> sysloghandler. Using the logging module would allow you to easily
> choose between syslog or any other logging method dynamically (at
> runtime) or later when you decide syslog isn't what you want to use.
>
> Cheers,
Thank you for letting me know. I appreciate the feedback.
--
Ginnie
