On 1/9/06, Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've never had the need to use them.
No, but other people do.
That's different from not wanting to
use them. The more choice you have, the more trouble you have. I agree that
a TRACE level might be of interest. But BLATHER and PROBLEM is
--On 10. Januar 2006 10:51:04 +0100 Lennart Regebro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I find all this fairly self-evident and highly useful, and se
absolutely zero reason for removing them, when they are so useful.
This decision was made for Zope 2.8 (according to zLOG/__init__.py).
We're now
On 1/10/06, Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This decision was made for Zope 2.8 (according to zLOG/__init__.py).
How do you mean? As far as I can see, all the levels are still there in zLOG py.
The question now is weather two of these levels should be removed, as
I understand it because
--On 10. Januar 2006 11:09:32 +0100 Lennart Regebro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 1/10/06, Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This decision was made for Zope 2.8 (according to zLOG/__init__.py).
How do you mean? As far as I can see, all the levels are still there in
zLOG py. The
On 1/10/06, Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't read anything about using old log levels for new code.
And neither do I read anything about NOT using them. So, your
statement that the decision was taken in 2.8 is false. That renders
the last posts pointless, and we are back at my first
--On 10. Januar 2006 11:44:31 +0100 Lennart Regebro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I don't have an opinion on solution yet.
What I want is something easy to use wher you can just import a log
method or object and make a function. I don't want to set things up,
because if we need to set things up,
On 1/10/06, Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This means basically keeping zLOG since it is only a very thin logging
module wrapper. So why did we deprecate zLOG? :-)
Did we? It was implemented as a wrapper in 2.8, but wasn't officially
deprecated until last week. ;-)
I still have no
--On 10. Januar 2006 12:20:14 +0100 Lennart Regebro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 1/10/06, Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This means basically keeping zLOG since it is only a very thin logging
module wrapper. So why did we deprecate zLOG? :-)
Did we? It was implemented as a wrapper
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Mon Jan 9 12:01:02 2006 UTC to Tue Jan 10 12:01:02 2006 UTC.
There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Unit Tests.
Tests passed OK
---
Subject: OK : Zope-2_6-branch Python-2.1.3 : Linux
From: Zope Unit Tests
Date: Mon Jan 9 21:02:54 EST
Lennart Regebro wrote:
I've never had the need to use them.
No, but other people do.
That's different from not wanting to
use them. The more choice you have, the more trouble you have. I agree that
a TRACE level might be of interest. But BLATHER and PROBLEM is competely
overhead from my
[Andreas Jung]
...
Obviously ZEO (using TRACE) runs on Zope 3 without zLOG so specific
extension can be handled locally.
ZEO also runs on Zopes 2.8 and 2.9 without zLOG -- zLOG hasn't been
used in ZODB since 3.2 (ZODBs 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, and current trunk
contain no references to zLOG).
If
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope trunk 2.4 Linux zc-buildbot.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 2702
Blamelist: andreasjung,jim,oestermeier,philikon
BUILD FAILED: failed test
sincerely,
-The Buildbot
Andreas Jung wrote:
To bring this discussion to an end:
- if we need specific logging functionaliy then it should be implemented
to be shared between Zope 2 and Zope 3
- adjusting the current code base from 'logging' to zope.logging would
mean just to replace the imports (assuming we
13 matches
Mail list logo
