Vinay Sajip <vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk> added the comment: "It was met by deafening silence though."
Give it time - it's only been a few days. For some reason, Google Groups doesn't show your post in the first page of results when I search for logging configuration by date (i.e. most recent on top): http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/search?q=logging+configuration&start=0&scoring=d The same problem if I search for "logging configuration" the phrase - again, it doesn't show up. However, if after a while there's still not much response, it would indicate that this is not perhaps such an important issue for the community as you feel it is. This doesn't stop you from rolling your own format, but gives less justification for adding a patch to the core stdlib. "[log4py's] configuration file scaled down much more gracefully for simple usage, mostly because it didn't expose its internal design like the logging one does. It had only loggers instead of loggers/handlers/formatters." Yes - Python logging is more complex because that's what's useful for developers. It's not really intended for end-users to change - in fact once something is in production, typically only levels need to change. This is surely editable by end users even with the existing config file format, as long as they're not too fazed by the other stuff which they don't need to touch. If they are - then a much simpler, application-specific, end-user friendly format seems more in order. "But log4py is discontinued now as a project and I can't face maintaining my own copy of it any more." What's to maintain? Python logging has been pretty stable now for a long time, and log4py being simpler shouldn't need any particular maintenance (since it has worked for you in the past). "I'm getting the feeling you're just trying to fob me off here. You dismiss the threads I found as being 'mostly about other things' or 'not mentioning specifics'. That may be so, but the fact is, in those threads you have five other people expressing in one way or another that the configuration file is too complex - and I'm sure I could find more if you really want. If you prefer to ignore them and me there's not much point in discussing further." I'm not trying to fob you off - I just stated what I found about those posts. The complaints you refer to were not specific enough to suggest improvements, and anyone can write comments about how crufty they think something is - it doesn't exactly tell the maintainer which direction they would like to go in. I'm not saying that applies to anything you personally have said - I'm referring to the comments in those posts you referred to. All of us in open source development have to balance a number of different issues and we all have different agendas and priorities. My position is that the logging configuration system, while not perfect, works and is used by quite a lot of people without problems. It's just not high on my list of priorities to tinker with the format, because the feedback I've had in the past is that those people who care a lot about configuration will roll their own anyway. I'm never going to be able to please them all, so why not focus my energies elsewhere? "I'm not demanding that you do this work. I'm simply trying to raise the issue and asking you to consider accepting such a patch if I or somebody else produce it." As I've said before, I've accepted numerous patches from numerous people in the past. You can confirm this from SVN where commit messages generally refer to issue numbers on this tracker. Clearly I can't make promises in advance to accept any future patch, but I've indicated where I'd set the bar (backward compatibility, doc changes, test changes) for a patch to be considered. ---------- _______________________________________ 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
