On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 22:04:36 +0100
Łukasz Langa <luk...@langa.pl> wrote:
> Wiadomość napisana przez Antoine Pitrou w dniu 2010-12-07, o godz. 21:50:
>
> > If any library defining a logger must also add a NullHandler just in
> > case, ISTM that complicates a lot the use of logging (and could explain
> > its impopularity). Both for library writers and application writers,
> > apparently (since the former will have to add the NullHandler, and the
> > latter will have to override it so that error messages get printed out
> > rather than lost).
>
> ISTM that the stdlib is a special case here. If you're writing an application
> then the "No handlers could be found" message is actually useful because
> there's hardly any reason no to include one.
Why do you say that? Not having to add a handler is certainly useful
when you are doing some quick prototyping or simply writing a script
(situations in which you still want to get error messages displayed
properly by the libraries).
> One way or the other, we should really default to the convenience of
> application developers. This is currently the case.
Why wouldn't there be a default convenience of printing out errors?
It's already the case for the root handler, so why would other handler
be treated differently?
>>> import logging
>>> logging.debug("foo")
>>> logging.error("bar")
ERROR:root:bar
Thanks
Antoine.
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
