On Nov 21, 11:08 am, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Having thought more about this, it _has_ to be that way - think of one
> handler attached to several loggers. Removing AND closing it from one would
> render it useless for others. You can't want that to happen.
You have a point.
Michele Simionato wrote:
> On Nov 21, 10:23 am, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I can only guess - but I'd say if you can do
>>
>> foo.removeHandler(h)
>>
>> you can do
>>
>> foo.removeHandler(h)
>> h.close()
>>
>> easily. But not
>>
>> foo.removeHandler(h) # implicit closing
>
On Nov 21, 10:23 am, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can only guess - but I'd say if you can do
>
> foo.removeHandler(h)
>
> you can do
>
> foo.removeHandler(h)
> h.close()
>
> easily. But not
>
> foo.removeHandler(h) # implicit closing
> bar.addHandler(h)
>
> It does kind of mak
Michele Simionato schrieb:
> I have just discovered a bug in my code using the logging module, due
> to
> handlers not being closed properly. The issue was that I called the
> function
> removeHandler and I assumed that it took care of closing the handler,
> but it did not.
> Looking at the source
I have just discovered a bug in my code using the logging module, due
to
handlers not being closed properly. The issue was that I called the
function
removeHandler and I assumed that it took care of closing the handler,
but it did not.
Looking at the source code of logging/__init__.py I discovered
