[Web-SIG] loggers and wsgi
chris at simplistix.co.uk
Thu Jan 17 13:12:49 CET 2008
Manlio Perillo wrote:
> wsgi.errors maybe should have an optional method:
> .msg(level, *args)
> where args is a list of strings
> .msg(*args, **kwargs)
> where the keys in kwargs are implementation defined.
I don't really see how this helps. If it's optional, then ever wsgi app
will need a bunch of if/then/else to decide if this method can be called
and what to do instead.
Likewise, having implementation defined parameters means the application
developer has to tie the app to a list of compatible servers and cater
for each one.
Surely a much better idea would be to give wsgi.errors a logger
attribute which behaved like a standard python logger?
(or, in fact, just make wsgi.error a python logger object...)
The only problem here is that the level specified won't necessarilly
match up to the server's idea of levels, but this is a mapping that can
either be done intelligently in the server implementation or, worst
case, by the person putting the components together in the server
>> Still, there's no problem with a wsgi application doing its own
>> logging to its own log files, right?
> There is an interoperability problem with external tools like logrotate,
> since some WSGI implementation are unable to catch signals.
That's why logrotate has copy-truncate ;-)
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
More information about the Web-SIG