"Vinay Sajip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Heller wrote: > >> I get the behaviour that I want when I add a 'NULL' handler in the >> library, but is this really how logging is intended to be used? >> > > The reason for the one-off message is that without it, a > misconfiguration or a failure to configure any handlers is notified to > a user (who is possibly not used to the logging package). I'm not sure > which is more annoying - a one-off message which occurs when no > handlers are configured and yet events are logged, or complete silence > from logging when something is misconfigured, and not giving any > feedback on what's wrong? (It's a rhetorical question - the answer is > of course quite subjective).
I do *not* think 'no handler' is a misconfiguration. Is it possible to differentiate between a misconfiguration and 'no configuration'? > Certainly, I could change things so that e.g. the error is suppressed > when logging.raiseExceptions is set to 0 (typically for production > use). That would be fine. But there are also other ways - you could, for example, print the warning only when __debug__ is False. And you could use the warnings module instead of blindly printing to stderr, this way it could also be filtered out. BTW: Since I have your attention now, is the graphical utility to configure the logging.conf file still available somewhere, and compatible with the current logging package (with 'current' I mean the one included with Python 2.3.5)? Thomas -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
