Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan <at> gmail.com> writes: > Unfortunately, the "py" package already claimed that namespace, so it > isn't really free for us to use in the standard library (even the > current "py.warnings" for redirected warnings may be misleading, as it > may give users the impression that package is involved somewhere along
Gosh, I had no idea the py package even existed. > the line). It is probably best just to go with the "__name__" > convention and not worry about being able to draw a clean distinction > between "standard library" and "third party" (that distinction doesn't > exist in the module heirarchy, so it isn't really reasonable to expect > it to exist in the logging heirarchy). True. > However, rather than a manually maintained list of low level loggers, > it may be feasible to just have a flag we can set on loggers that > makes them immune to the default implicit disabling. Then the config Yes, I thought about this option after I posted, using "leave_enabled" as the attribute name, as well as possibly an API to register loggers for being skipped by the disable logic. A logger flag is definitely easier all round. > calls can support three levels of logger disabling: > - leave all existing loggers enabled (existing option) I think you mean disabled - that's the current behaviour. > - leave only flagged loggers enabled (new default behaviour) > - disable all loggers not mentioned explicitly (new option) So far, this seems the best approach. Thanks, Vinay Sajip _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
