Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: CMF GenericSetup log levels

2005-12-15 Thread Chris Withers

yuppie wrote:
1.) It would be nice to have a policy for Zope. If the Zope core 
officially supports the BLATHER level (not just in the deprecated zLOG 
module) I'm fine with using it in GenericSetup as well.


It doesn't, ZODB has a mapping for it but it's a stupid name left over 
from before the same timeframe as STUPID_LOGGER and some of the wacky 
error messages that ZServer used to spit out. I really want it to die :-(


Python has .info and .debug.

If this stuff is useful and normal people will want to know it, it 
should be at info.


If it's not really that interesting and is only useful when there's a 
problem, it should be at .debug


2.) So far IWriteLogger just defines methods that are also used by the 
python logging Logger. If we add a blather method we can no longer use 
the python logger as a replacement.


Hmmm, this sounds odd. Why does IWriteLogger even exist if it just 
mirrors the python logging interface?


3.) I don't think all messages should have the same logging level. E.g. 
if there are problems that will cause broken setups WARNING might be 
appropriate.


No, .error is what you want here.

.warning is for things that are problems but which don't result in 
broken setups.


Messages that report the success of export steps are a 
candidate for DEBUG.


Agreed, although a summary logged at info at the end would be nice...

Chris

--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope  Python Consulting
   - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
___
Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests


[Zope-CMF] Re: CMF GenericSetup log levels

2005-12-15 Thread Florent Guillaume

Chris Withers wrote:

yuppie wrote:
1.) It would be nice to have a policy for Zope. If the Zope core 
officially supports the BLATHER level (not just in the deprecated zLOG 
module) I'm fine with using it in GenericSetup as well.



It doesn't, ZODB has a mapping for it but it's a stupid name left over 
from before the same timeframe as STUPID_LOGGER and some of the wacky 
error messages that ZServer used to spit out. I really want it to die :-(


Stupid is in the eye of the beholder. You don't like something that's useful 
for others so you want it to die. Congratulations for your openmindedness. 
And you apparently can't grasp the idea that there can be different levels 
of informativeness.



Python has .info and .debug.

If this stuff is useful and normal people will want to know it, it 
should be at info.


There's no such thing has normal people. There are many profiles. And at 
different times the same person may want to read information at a more 
detailed level than usual. Just INFO and DEBUG is not enough.


Florent

--
Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France)   CTO, Director of RD
+33 1 40 33 71 59   http://nuxeo.com   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests


[Zope-CMF] Re: CMF GenericSetup log levels

2005-12-15 Thread yuppie

Hi Chris!


Chris Withers wrote:

yuppie wrote:
1.) It would be nice to have a policy for Zope. If the Zope core 
officially supports the BLATHER level (not just in the deprecated zLOG 
module) I'm fine with using it in GenericSetup as well.


It doesn't, ZODB has a mapping for it but it's a stupid name left over 
from before the same timeframe as STUPID_LOGGER and some of the wacky 
error messages that ZServer used to spit out. I really want it to die :-(


It doesn't right now, but AFAIR the discussion on zope-dev ended without 
a clear result. The question if BLATHER should die isn't CMF specific in 
any way, so I don't want to discuss it on this list.


2.) So far IWriteLogger just defines methods that are also used by the 
python logging Logger. If we add a blather method we can no longer use 
the python logger as a replacement.


Hmmm, this sounds odd. Why does IWriteLogger even exist if it just 
mirrors the python logging interface?


Feel free to contribute a patch if you think this could be implemented 
in a cleaner way. I don't have the time to figure out how to use the 
Python logger for the reports created by the setup tool. The current 
implementation is a wrapper around the Python logger which adds a copy 
of all messages to the _messages list of the setup context.


3.) I don't think all messages should have the same logging level. 
E.g. if there are problems that will cause broken setups WARNING might 
be appropriate.


No, .error is what you want here.


No, WARNING is what I want here.

.warning is for things that are problems but which don't result in 
broken setups.


By 'broken setups' I meant e.g. if you loose some catalog indexes on 
export/import because no handler exists for those index classes. This is 
a problem you should know about, but maybe you don't care or you fix 
that by hand.



Cheers,

Yuppie

___
Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests


Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: CMF GenericSetup log levels

2005-12-15 Thread Chris Withers

Florent Guillaume wrote:
Stupid is in the eye of the beholder. You don't like something that's 
useful for others so you want it to die. Congratulations for your 
openmindedness. And you apparently can't grasp the idea that there can 
be different levels of informativeness.


Are you honestly telling me that warning, info, debug, error and 
critical aren't enough?


debug is the same as blather, just with a more meaningful name...




Python has .info and .debug.

If this stuff is useful and normal people will want to know it, it 
should be at info.


There's no such thing has normal people. There are many profiles. 


Yeah, that's why we have configurable log levels in zope.conf ;-)

And at 
different times the same person may want to read information at a more 
detailed level than usual. Just INFO and DEBUG is not enough.


Sure it is ;-) You seem to be confusign .info with .warning. If your 
funny customers get scared by stuff at .info, then change their log 
level in zope.conf to warning, then they won't bug you so much and in 
turn get you bugging the rest of us to log at the wrong levels ;-)


Chris

--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope  Python Consulting
   - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
___
Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests


[Zope-CMF] Re: CMF GenericSetup log levels

2005-12-15 Thread Chris Withers

yuppie wrote:
By 'broken setups' I meant e.g. if you loose some catalog indexes on 
export/import because no handler exists for those index classes. This is 
a problem you should know about, but maybe you don't care or you fix 
that by hand.


Ah, okay, I kinda agree here, and don't feel strongly enough about it to 
argue :-)


Chris

--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope  Python Consulting
   - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
___
Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests


[Zope-CMF] Re: CMF GenericSetup log levels

2005-12-15 Thread Chris Withers

Hi Tres,

Tres Seaver wrote:


No, it isn't, at least in Zope.  BLATHER is intended to be summary
information, useful for developers but not important enough to show by
default.  DEBUG is for more detailed information, and TRACE is for
completely overwhelming detail.


Show me the docs in zope and I'll believe that's not just your 
interpretation ;-)



Sure it is ;-) You seem to be confusign .info with .warning. If your
funny customers get scared by stuff at .info, then change their log
level in zope.conf to warning, then they won't bug you so much and in
turn get you bugging the rest of us to log at the wrong levels ;-)


Your misunderstanding of Zope's levels is clearly present in that
sentence, Chris.


Oh? Please explain...

Chris

--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope  Python Consulting
   - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
___
Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests


[Zope-CMF] Re: CMF GenericSetup log levels

2005-12-15 Thread Tres Seaver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Chris Withers wrote:
 Florent Guillaume wrote:
 
 Stupid is in the eye of the beholder. You don't like something that's
 useful for others so you want it to die. Congratulations for your
 openmindedness. And you apparently can't grasp the idea that there can
 be different levels of informativeness.
 
 
 Are you honestly telling me that warning, info, debug, error and
 critical aren't enough?
 
 debug is the same as blather, just with a more meaningful name...

No, it isn't, at least in Zope.  BLATHER is intended to be summary
information, useful for developers but not important enough to show by
default.  DEBUG is for more detailed information, and TRACE is for
completely overwhelming detail.

 Python has .info and .debug.

 If this stuff is useful and normal people will want to know it, it
 should be at info.


 There's no such thing has normal people. There are many profiles. 
 
 
 Yeah, that's why we have configurable log levels in zope.conf ;-)
 
 And at different times the same person may want to read information at
 a more detailed level than usual. Just INFO and DEBUG is not enough.
 
 
 Sure it is ;-) You seem to be confusign .info with .warning. If your
 funny customers get scared by stuff at .info, then change their log
 level in zope.conf to warning, then they won't bug you so much and in
 turn get you bugging the rest of us to log at the wrong levels ;-)

Your misunderstanding of Zope's levels is clearly present in that
sentence, Chris.


Tres.
- --
===
Tres Seaver  +1 202-558-7113  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Palladion Software   Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDoaCB+gerLs4ltQ4RAuJmAJsFmyaDr30bpVyMzHlviX3hOjgp/wCgxBwU
raBfALEsvV/RoQHKNsXYEDM=
=Hq2n
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests


[Zope-CMF] Re: CMF GenericSetup log levels

2005-12-14 Thread yuppie

Hi Florent!


Florent Guillaume wrote:
I don't want to start another flamewar, but can I bump down the log 
levels of CMF's exportimports a bit ?

INFO is too much.


The currently used log levels are provisional, I agree that we should 
change at least most of them.



DEBUG or BLATHER ?

I can add a blather method in GenericSetup.context.Logger.


Some thoughts:

1.) It would be nice to have a policy for Zope. If the Zope core 
officially supports the BLATHER level (not just in the deprecated zLOG 
module) I'm fine with using it in GenericSetup as well.


2.) So far IWriteLogger just defines methods that are also used by the 
python logging Logger. If we add a blather method we can no longer use 
the python logger as a replacement.


3.) I don't think all messages should have the same logging level. E.g. 
if there are problems that will cause broken setups WARNING might be 
appropriate. Messages that report the success of export steps are a 
candidate for DEBUG.




Cheers,

Yuppie

___
Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests