--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 in 2.8, but wasn't officially deprecated until last week. ;-)
Right, with the intention to get rid of zLOG at some point in the future (from my memory).
I still have no opinion on the actual issue. I know what I want, but if it has too many drawbacks, I don't want it. :-) Something common between Zope3 and Zope2 would probably be a good idea.
That would be the way to go. But I still have my doubts. Zope 3 obviouslydoes not need a dedicated logging module, why does Zope 2 need one? Obviously ZEO (using TRACE) runs on Zope 3 without zLOG so specific extension can be handled locally.
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 keep getLogger() factory)....
I am not totally against something like zope.logging but I still don't see the real need. We have some months until Zope 2.10 to get this in the right way.
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki: http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev