From: Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This discussion smells like that string should be computed from
introspection.
Why can't it be computed from introspecting whatever code called the log
method?
Well, first of all, how? __name__ should always be available, but that is
the name of the file
On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 10:01, Chris Withers wrote:
This discussion smells like that string should be computed from introspection.
Why can't it be computed from introspecting whatever code called the log method?
You probably could do it via sys._getframe(). I'm not sure you should
though. ;)
On Wednesday 14 April 2004 01:49 am, Andreas Jung wrote:
What is the recommend way to migrate existing code?
I assume using:
import logging
logger = logging.getLogger(loggername).
That works, and certainly matches what I've been doing, and what we see in the
Zope 3 codebase as well.
From: Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED]
When I look through the Zope HEAD code then you are using e.g.
'zodb.conn' or 'zodb.storage' but also 'Zope' as loggername. Do we
have to agree on some common usage of the logger names?
E.g. for logging calls in the reST packagebetter using 'Zope' or
--On Mittwoch, 14. April 2004 10:57 Uhr +0200 Lennart Regebro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED]
When I look through the Zope HEAD code then you are using e.g.
'zodb.conn' or 'zodb.storage' but also 'Zope' as loggername. Do we
have to agree on some common usage of
--On Mittwoch, 14. April 2004 16:45 Uhr +0200 Andreas Jung
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On Mittwoch, 14. April 2004 10:57 Uhr +0200 Lennart Regebro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED]
When I look through the Zope HEAD code then you are using e.g.
'zodb.conn' or
From: Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Keep the product name as it is...means Products/ should use
Zope. as logger name. No need to introduce a new mapping. Keep it
simple.
Yeah, but is it reasonable to think that people who write new products will
do this? A rule that most people will
On Wednesday 14 April 2004 11:44 am, Lennart Regebro wrote:
Yeah, but is it reasonable to think that people who write new products
will do this? A rule that most people will break is a bad rule... That
people working on Zope itself can be well versed enough to use Zope.
for things in
On Wednesday 14 April 2004 10:45 am, Andreas Jung wrote:
For consitency: Zope.Products.
For lazy writers: Zope. X
I prefer the second solution...everyone should know what are products and
what
are packages. In fact the name does not matter because you can see in the
traceback
On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 18:53, Fred Drake wrote:
Keeping it simple is good, but I'd still like to see every logging subsystem
in code that ships with the Zope 2 core start with Zope. This is a
potential backwards compatibility issue, though, since log-trawling tools are
already using the
[Chris McDonough]
There probably are no log-trawling tools. The output generated by zLOG
is basically unparseable.
Alas, that hasn't stopped people from writing trawlers to analyze ZEO server
and client logs. That one's going to be my headache to fix(*), and has
some urgency since ZODB/ZEO's
zLOG is dead
The zLOG package used for logging throughout ZODB, ZEO, and Zope 2 has
been declared obsolete. All logging for Zope products will use the
logging package from Python's standard library.
The zLOG package still exists in Zope 2 and the separate package for
+1
What is the recommend way to migrate existing code?
I assume using:
import logging
logger = logging.getLogger(loggername).
When I look through the Zope HEAD code then you are using e.g.
'zodb.conn' or 'zodb.storage' but also 'Zope' as loggername. Do we
have to agree on some common usage of
13 matches
Mail list logo
