Raymond Hettinger <python@...> writes:
While I'm no fan of the logging module, it is widely used. It was based on a Java version and Guido blessed it early-on.
Raymond, I took *some ideas* from log4j. In that sense it was "based on", but it is not a port. While Guido did bless it, I do believe it went through a reasonable review process on python-dev (where you could certainly have given some feedback - I don't remember that you did) and I changed the package in response to various concerns from various people. It certainly didn't feel to me like a rubber-stamping exercise - do you feel that it was? Logging's current design is based on the premise that logging is concerned with "What happened?", "Where did it happen?", "How important is it?" and "Who wants to know?", and this is completely general and not tied to any language or environment. Of course there are many designs which could be developed from such a premise, and the present design is just one such. The abstractions in log4j (such as a hierarchical namespace for loggers, and handlers as orthogonal to loggers, whereas many systems conflate them) made sense to me (and to a lot of others), and it's no surprise that I named my abstractions similarly where that made sense. Beyond that, there's little correspondence between log4j's code and the code in Python's logging. I'm sorry you're not a fan. Is it an aesthetic thing, or have you had specific problems?