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 -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fred at zope.com> PythonLabs at Zope Corporation _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )