In October 2009 I created PEP 391 to propose a new method of configuring logging using dictionaries: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0391/ In November 2009 I posted to this list that the PEP was ready for review. I have had numerous helpful comments from some of you, and I have incorporated most of them into updates to the PEP. Though I have the feeling from community discussions that the PEP has been generally favourably received - well I would think that, wouldn't I? ;-) - I've not asked for a vote and so I don't know the state of community consensus regarding this PEP. So, can you please indicate your vote for or against incorporating PEP 391 into Python? It would be nice if I could incorporate the changes before 2.7a3 is released! Ideally, I would like to check in the changes unless there are objections to doing so. All those who think that logging is currently hard to configure will benefit from these changes, so here's the opportunity to pipe up and improve things. Thanks & regards, Vinay Sajip
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Vinay Sajip <vinay_sajip@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: [..]
So, can you please indicate your vote for or against incorporating PEP 391 into Python? It would be nice if I could incorporate the changes before 2.7a3 is released! Ideally, I would like to check in the changes unless there are objections to doing so. All those who think that logging is currently hard to configure will benefit from these changes, so here's the opportunity to pipe up and improve things.
FWIW, I am +1. Thanks for your work Tarek
Paul Moore wrote:
2010/1/14 Vinay Sajip <vinay_sajip@yahoo.co.uk>:
So, can you please indicate your vote for or against incorporating PEP 391 into Python?
I've no immediate need for the feature, but it would be good to have something like this, so I'm +1.
I'm in the same boat as Paul, but PEP 291 provides a nice forward compatible configuration scheme that will work with any application configuration approach that can produce an appropriate Python dictionary. So +1 from me too - I think the PEP has now taken this as far as theorising can go, and the only way to learn anything further is to put it into practice. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ---------------------------------------------------------------
Vinay Sajip wrote:
In October 2009 I created PEP 391 to propose a new method of configuring logging using dictionaries:
Although one minor comment: you can probably remove the note about the "ext://" and "cfg://" prefixes being provisional at this stage. Those names look fine to me, so I don't see any point inviting a late-breaking bikeshed discussion about them. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ---------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 4:23 AM, Vinay Sajip <vinay_sajip@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
In October 2009 I created PEP 391 to propose a new method of configuring logging using dictionaries:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0391/
In November 2009 I posted to this list that the PEP was ready for review.
I have had numerous helpful comments from some of you, and I have incorporated most of them into updates to the PEP. Though I have the feeling from community discussions that the PEP has been generally favourably received - well I would think that, wouldn't I? ;-) - I've not asked for a vote and so I don't know the state of community consensus regarding this PEP.
So, can you please indicate your vote for or against incorporating PEP 391 into Python? It would be nice if I could incorporate the changes before 2.7a3 is released! Ideally, I would like to check in the changes unless there are objections to doing so. All those who think that logging is currently hard to configure will benefit from these changes, so here's the opportunity to pipe up and improve things.
Thanks & regards,
Vinay Sajip
I'm generally +1 - but given I know that Django 1.2 is slated to implement something somewhat similar, I'm interested to hear how this proposal meshes with their plan(s). jesse
From: Jesse Noller <jnoller@gmail.com>
I'm generally +1 - but given I know that Django 1.2 is slated to implement something somewhat similar, I'm interested to hear how this proposal meshes with their plan(s)..
Django 1.2 will most likely not implement logging - they're now in feature freeze for big features. See Russ Magee's post: http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/msg/4ef81a2160257221 They're waiting for a Python decision and (from Russ Magee's post) seem to be in favour of the changes proposed in PEP 391. If we get these changes into Python soon, then Django 1.3 may be able to make use of them in its logging (which encompasses not just configuring Django logging in a settings.py, but also using logging internally throughout Django where it makes sense to do so). Assuming PEP 391 gets the nod, then after implementing the changes into Python, I plan to work with the Django community to get improved logging support in Django for 1.3. Regards, Vinay Sajip
On Jan 14, 2010, at 9:08 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
From: Jesse Noller <jnoller@gmail.com>
I'm generally +1 - but given I know that Django 1.2 is slated to implement something somewhat similar, I'm interested to hear how this proposal meshes with their plan(s)..
Django 1.2 will most likely not implement logging - they're now in feature freeze for big features. See Russ Magee's post:
http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/msg/4ef81a2160257221
They're waiting for a Python decision and (from Russ Magee's post) seem to be in favour of the changes proposed in PEP 391. If we get these changes into Python soon, then Django 1.3 may be able to make use of them in its logging (which encompasses not just configuring Django logging in a settings.py, but also using logging internally throughout Django where it makes sense to do so).
Assuming PEP 391 gets the nod, then after implementing the changes into Python, I plan to work with the Django community to get improved logging support in Django for 1.3.
That puts a huge +1 on there for me. If we can get this approved and have Django's logging improved *and* avoid a whole pile of duplicate effort in Django that's a huge win. S
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Vinay Sajip <vinay_sajip@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
From: Jesse Noller <jnoller@gmail.com>
I'm generally +1 - but given I know that Django 1.2 is slated to implement something somewhat similar, I'm interested to hear how this proposal meshes with their plan(s)..
Django 1.2 will most likely not implement logging - they're now in feature freeze for big features. See Russ Magee's post:
http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/msg/4ef81a2160257221
They're waiting for a Python decision and (from Russ Magee's post) seem to be in favour of the changes proposed in PEP 391. If we get these changes into Python soon, then Django 1.3 may be able to make use of them in its logging (which encompasses not just configuring Django logging in a settings.py, but also using logging internally throughout Django where it makes sense to do so).
Assuming PEP 391 gets the nod, then after implementing the changes into Python, I plan to work with the Django community to get improved logging support in Django for 1.3.
Regards,
Vinay Sajip
Cool, +1 then :)
participants (7)
-
Jesse Noller -
Nick Coghlan -
Paul Moore -
Simon Cross -
ssteinerX＠gmail.com -
Tarek Ziadé -
Vinay Sajip