On 07:45 pm, ra...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Jamu Kakar <jka...@kakar.ca> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Facundo Batista
<facundobati...@gmail.com> wrote:
Mmm... which is the problem with doing:
log.msg("Foo happened. Relevant information includes: "
"bar=%s baz=%s boz=%s", bar, baz, boz)
Is way more readable, and in the practice the code will just need to
do something like:
The example above could be written in a logfmt-compatible way as:
log.msg("message=Foo happened bar=%s baz=%s boz=%s", bar, baz, boz)
This is as readable as what you have above while being a touch easier
to parse. The main point that logs are data and should emitted in a
way that makes consuming them easy is a good one regardless of the
format you choose. I do wonder if logfmt is unnecessary and if simply
dumping JSON objects would be just as good... logfmt is slightly
prettier but the JSON approach has the advantage of having a parser
available in basically every language anyone would ever care about.
I think both of these should be avoided because they require the user
to specify string interpolation themselves. I'd prefer to avoid that
entirely, by default.
log.msg("Foo happened**", bar=bar, baz=baz, boz=boz)
This is better because:
1. it keeps the data structured
2. it is a lot less typing
** I would prefer this part to be "foo", but I'll keep these
discussions separate :)
I think that I agree with this, except I wonder if you could supply some
more realistic examples here. Let's say I have a somewhat complex
50kloc application with a log event emitted around once every 10 lines.
After I use up "foo", "bar", "baz", and "quux" I start having to refer
to the hacker dictionary. This doesn't get me very close to the 5000
event identifiers I'll need. How does someone come up with this in the
real world?
Jean-Paul
_______________________________________________
Twisted-Python mailing list
Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com
http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
