Andreas Jung wrote at 2006-1-10 11:23 +0100:
...
Do we need one for Zope 2 and Zope 3?
I think what we discussed during breakfast would be optimal:
To configure the Python logger such that:
* it supports additional (Zope2/3 standard!) log levels
* displays Zope tracebacks rather
Andreas Jung wrote at 2006-1-9 18:06 +0100:
...
I've never had the need to use them. 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 point of
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
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
On 1/9/06, Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ZODB defines these levels but I can not see any code in the ZODB package
that actually uses these levels.
Nobody should be using the zLOG levels with the logging package, but
rather use the logging package levels. So in the end, there's no need
--On 9. Januar 2006 10:55:21 -0500 Fred Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/9/06, Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ZODB defines these levels but I can not see any code in the ZODB package
that actually uses these levels.
Nobody should be using the zLOG levels with the logging
On 9 Jan 2006, at 16:55, Fred Drake wrote:
On 1/9/06, Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ZODB defines these levels but I can not see any code in the ZODB
package
that actually uses these levels.
Nobody should be using the zLOG levels with the logging package, but
rather use the logging
[Fred Drake]
Nobody should be using the zLOG levels with the logging package, but
rather use the logging package levels. So in the end, there's no need
for Zope to be defining levels at all, only conventions for how the
levels are used.
The logging package supports defining as many
On 1/9/06, Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My point is that the python logging levels are insufficiently fine
grained.
The python logging framework leaves room for numeric levels and
registering equivalent strings, and indeed ZODB and zLOG have them
defined.
I want to use them.
--On 9. Januar 2006 17:06:25 +0100 Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My point is that the python logging levels are insufficiently fine
grained.
Sufficently enough for me. BLATHER TRACE can be merged to DEBUG
and PROBLEM to either WARN|ERROR. This should be even enough for Zope.
On 9 Jan 2006, at 17:25, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 9. Januar 2006 17:06:25 +0100 Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
My point is that the python logging levels are insufficiently fine
grained.
Sufficently enough for me.
Sufficient for me is not a good reason sorry. If you don't want
On 9 Jan 2006, at 17:20, Fred Drake wrote:
On 1/9/06, Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My point is that the python logging levels are insufficiently fine
grained.
The python logging framework leaves room for numeric levels and
registering equivalent strings, and indeed ZODB and zLOG
--On 9. Januar 2006 17:40:26 +0100 Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9 Jan 2006, at 17:25, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 9. Januar 2006 17:06:25 +0100 Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
My point is that the python logging levels are insufficiently fine
grained.
Sufficently
21 matches
Mail list logo