On Mar 24, 9:34 am, Peter Otten <__pete...@web.de> wrote: > > You mean you'd have to monkey-patchlogging._findCaller() instead of > overridinglogging.Logger.findCaller()? > > I don't see a big advantage in that. >
Only that you just have to replace a function, and not have to subclass Logger + override findCaller. And it's not especially monkey- patching if the function is put there specifically to be replaced when needed :-) > Another simplification might be to have setLoggerClass() implicitly set the > root logger and to drop the distinct RootLogger class completely. I can't remember now why I created a separate class for the root - I thought it might have some specialization which never happened. Of course, I'm not sure if anyone is using it, so I can't just get rid of it. Anyway, the root logger is in some sense special so it might be more useful in the future. > Note that I have no strong opinion on all this. If you leave things as is > I'm fine with that. Yes, it's hardly a common case that the OP is mentioning. AFAIK this is the first time it's come up. I just thought from your and Jean- Michel's solutions that there might be a need felt by more people to have this functionality be more flexible. Regards, Vinay Sajip -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
