On Wednesday 14 April 2004 10:45 am, Andreas Jung wrote:
 > For consitency: Zope.Products.XXXX
 > For lazy writers: Zope. XXXXX
 > 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
 > where the error occurs. You don't get this information from the name
 > directly.

I disagree.  Not everyone that looks at the logs will be a site developer or 
Zope product or core developer.  Keeping things explicit is reasonable.

 > Keep the product name as it is...means Products/XXXX should use
 > Zope.XXXX as logger name. No need to introduce a new mapping. Keep it
 > simple.

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 names currently generated, as inconsistent as they are.


Fred L. Drake, Jr.  <fred at zope.com>
PythonLabs at Zope Corporation

Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to