If we're all converging on adding a handler of last resort and dropping the
warning message, we can just let this branch of the thread drop. But if you want
to continue, I already had most of the following already written. I hope it
clears some things up more than it muddies them further. :-)
On 12/8/2010 2:00 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
Actually, I don't think my response to Nick's post (about concurrent.futures)
could be characterized as I don't care, as I even made a specific proposal
about how a change could be implemented.
Your proposal struck me as probably the best way forward.
On 8 December 2010 19:04, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Paul Moore p.f.moore at gmail.com writes:
On 8 December 2010 14:52, Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com wrote:
As I see it, there aren't many cases at the *library* level where
logging errors is more appropriate than
Paul Moore p.f.moore at gmail.com writes:
You misunderstand me. I know that's how those levels work. What I'm
not sure about (and I think would be interesting and potentially
useful information) is whether the individuals participating in this
thread feel that liberal use of info and debug
On 12/8/2010 9:43 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
offtopic
As am off-topic example, Armin Ronacher kept on saying in various posts and
presentations that you couldn't use stdlib logging for web applications, that
there were fundamental problems with it. But when he actually sent me his
specific problem
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 December 2010 14:52, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
As I see it, there aren't many cases at the *library* level where
logging errors is more appropriate than raising exceptions:
On a slightly tangential note,
On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 20:26:06 + (UTC)
Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
From my perspective and as mentioned in the logging documentation, library
code
which uses logging should add a NullHandler instance to any top-level logger,
which will avoid any No handlers could be found
Wiadomość napisana przez Antoine Pitrou w dniu 2010-12-07, o godz. 21:50:
If any library defining a logger must also add a NullHandler just in
case, ISTM that complicates a lot the use of logging (and could explain
its impopularity). Both for library writers and application writers,
On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 22:04:36 +0100
Łukasz Langa luk...@langa.pl wrote:
Wiadomość napisana przez Antoine Pitrou w dniu 2010-12-07, o godz. 21:50:
If any library defining a logger must also add a NullHandler just in
case, ISTM that complicates a lot the use of logging (and could explain
its
On 12/07/2010 03:26 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
I would suggest that when unit testing, rather than adding StreamHandlers to log
to stderr, that something like TestHandler and Matcher from this post:
http://plumberjack.blogspot.com/2010/09/unit-testing-and-logging.html
This will allow assertion
Wiadomość napisana przez Antoine Pitrou w dniu 2010-12-07, o godz. 22:19:
If you're writing an application then the No handlers could be found
message is actually useful because there's hardly any reason no to include
one.
Why do you say that? Not having to add a handler is certainly
On 12/7/10 2:26 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
This issue was brought to my notice today:
http://bugs.python.org/issue10626
and reference was made in the comments to possible obstacles facing stdlib
maintainers who might wish to use logging in the stdlib and in its unit tests.
From my perspective
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 13:57, Eric Smith e...@trueblade.com wrote:
On 12/07/2010 03:26 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
I would suggest that when unit testing, rather than adding StreamHandlers
to log
to stderr, that something like TestHandler and Matcher from this post:
On 12/7/10 4:59 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
On 12/7/10 2:26 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
This issue was brought to my notice today:
http://bugs.python.org/issue10626
and reference was made in the comments to possible obstacles facing stdlib
maintainers who might wish to use logging in the stdlib and in
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
Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net writes:
I thought error and critical messages were logged to stderr by
default? Isn't it the case?
Only if you call basicConfig() or use the logging.debug(), logging.info(), etc.
module-level convenience functions (which call basicConfig under the
Robert Kern robert.kern at gmail.com writes:
If I had my druthers, I would simply remove the No handlers could be
found for logger XXX message. If we always wrote entire applications
from the ground up, it makes a lot of sense. The person that writes the
code that issues logs is the same
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
On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 23:45:39 + (UTC)
Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net writes:
I thought error and critical messages were logged to stderr by
default? Isn't it the case?
Only if you call basicConfig() or use the logging.debug(),
Eric Smith eric at trueblade.com writes:
Wouldn't it make more sense to add these to test.support? I don't think
we make any guarantees about its API being stable, although I have a
faint recollection of that being debated in the past.
That's what I mean when I said unit test
On 12/07/2010 07:09 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
Eric Smithericat trueblade.com writes:
Wouldn't it make more sense to add these to test.support? I don't think
we make any guarantees about its API being stable, although I have a
faint recollection of that being debated in the past.
That's what
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 23:45:39 + (UTC)
Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net writes:
I thought error and critical messages were logged to stderr by
default? Isn't it the
Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net writes:
Why wouldn't it be the default for all logging calls ? Such special
cases don't really make things easy to remember.
One size doesn't fit all. Everything's documented reasonably well. If you use it
often, you remember it. If you use it seldom,
On Dec 08, 2010, at 12:01 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
Barry, if you mean +1 as in I agree this is how it should work, then
we're all agreed.
Yep, that's what I meant!
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com writes:
Indeed - I was very surprised to find just now that calling
logging.warn('Whatever') is not the same as doing log =
logging.getLogger(); log.warn('Whatever').
Don't know why you'd be surprised: it's been that way since logging was added to
Python,
On 2010-12-07 17:58 , Vinay Sajip wrote:
Robert Kernrobert.kernat gmail.com writes:
If I had my druthers, I would simply remove the No handlers could be
found for logger XXX message. If we always wrote entire applications
from the ground up, it makes a lot of sense. The person that writes
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com writes:
Indeed - I was very surprised to find just now that calling
logging.warn('Whatever') is not the same as doing log =
logging.getLogger(); log.warn('Whatever').
Don't know
101 - 127 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
