Glenn Linderman g.nevcal.com> writes:
> I didn't dig through the logging docs to discover if there is an API
> that returns a list of currently known loggers such that an
> application could easily discover the current set. It would be nice
> to have such a thing, in any case
On 12/28/2010 4:16 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
How does that sound?
Sounds pretty rational, overall.
If the leave_enabled flag can be turned on/off by the application, then
I agree the arms race is unlikely.
I didn't dig through the logging docs to discover if there is an API
that returns a lis
Glenn Linderman g.nevcal.com> writes:
> I thought of the idea of a flag to make loggers immune, but it
> seemed it could lead to an arms race, where the knee-jerk reaction
> of discovering that a library's logger got disabled would be to set
> the flag, and, of course, the knee-je
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Glenn Linderman
> wrote:
>> On 12/28/2010 12:19 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>>
>>> calls can support three levels of logger disabling:
>>> - leave all existing loggers enabled (existing option)
>>
>> I think you m
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> On 12/28/2010 12:19 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>
>> calls can support three levels of logger disabling:
>> - leave all existing loggers enabled (existing option)
>
> I think you mean disabled - that's the current behaviour.
>
>> - leave only fl
On 12/28/2010 12:19 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
> calls can support three levels of logger disabling:
> - leave all existing loggers enabled (existing option)
I think you mean disabled - that's the current behaviour.
> - leave only flagged loggers enabled (new default behaviour)
> - disable all
On 12/27/2010 11:53 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
However, rather than a manually maintained list of low level loggers,
Yes, a manually maintained list would be bad.
it may be feasible to just have a flag we can set on loggers that
makes them immune to the default implicit disabling. Then the confi
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
> However, it would be good to have some consistency of naming stdlib
> loggers
> - perhaps using __name__ as is recommended practice for library and
> application
> developers, but with a prefix such as "py." to indicate that it's a part o
On 12/27/2010 7:29 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
The logging configuration calls fileConfig and dictConfig disable all existing
loggers, and enable only loggers explicitly named in the configuration (and
their children). Although there is a disable_existing_loggers option for each
configuration API, whi
