--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 obviously
does 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.


Attachment: pgp5zoJxQm3so.pgp
Description: PGP signature

For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -  ZODB-Dev@zope.org

Reply via email to