On Aug 30, 9:53 am, Michel Albert <exh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately this setup makes `logging.basicConfig` pretty useless. > However, I believe that this is something that more people could > benefit from. I also believe, that it just "makes sense" to send > warnings (and above) to `stderr`, the rest to `stdout`. > > So I was thinking: "Why does `logging.basicConfig` not behave that > way". Because what seems entirely natural and obvious to you might not seem so for someone else. The API in the stdlib tries to provide baseline functionality which others can build on. For example, if you always have a particular pattern which you use, you can always write a utility function to set things up exactly how you like, and others who want to set things up differently (for whatever reason) can do the same thing, without having to come into conflict (if that's not too strong a word) with views different from their own. > Naturally, I was thinking of writing a patch against the python > codebase and submit it as a suggestion. But before doing so, I would > like to hear your thoughts on this. Does it make sense to you too or > am I on the wrong track? Are there any downsides I am missing? Python 2.x is closed to feature changes, and Python 2.7 and Python 3.2 already support flexible configuration using dictConfig() - see http://docs.python.org/library/logging.config.html#logging.config.dictConfig Also, Python 3.3 will support passing a list of handlers to basicConfig(): see http://plumberjack.blogspot.com/2011/04/added-functionality-for-basicconfig-in.html which will allow you to do what you want quite easily. Regards, Vinay Sajip -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
