Vinay Sajip <vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk> added the comment: a) Loggers don't have a one-to-one correspondence to files that are opened, so I don't quite understand your point. Perhaps you are conflating loggers with handlers. The common way of using logging is to have a small number of file-based handlers and perhaps a socket handler and console handler, working with a potentially much larger number of loggers.
b) If you want to propose a patch (incl. tests and docs) which maintains backward compatibility, I'll certainly look at it. the qualname *is* compulsory as it determines exactly which logger is instantiated. So I don't understand your statement. c) Having used log4py (which I'm not familiar with), it may be that you have to consider that Python's logging package might do some things differently. You are of course free to use your own configuration format - it's one of those areas where personal taste is more of a factor. I don't know of any alternative formats which have a lot of traction for configuring logging specifically, though the programmatic API for configuring logging is pretty simple and almost any other configuration approach could be made to fit. It's funny to hear you comment on the inappropriateness of curly braces in Python, how do you manage without dict literals? ;-) It's probably best not to continue this discussion on the issue tracker - it's not the best place as it's not its intended purpose, and also the audience here will be much smaller than, say, comp.lang.python. Before rolling your own config format, I would suggest posting on c.l.py with your difficulties with logging configuration and see how others have coped with those or similar problems. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue6136> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
