Re: Proposal: Logging system rewrite

On 04/04/05 02:58, will guaraldi wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Steven Armstrong wrote:
>>
>> As everybody seems to be +1 on this, what do you think about the above 
>> problem?
>>
>> What I currently do is the following:
>>
>> I've created two functions in tools, namely:
>>
>> tools.py ----------
>>
>> _config = None
>> def initialize(conf):
>>  global _config
>>  _config = conf
>>
>> def cleanup():
>>  "close logfiles and do other cleanup stuff"
>>
>> -------------------
>>
>> I then call tools.initialize(config) from Pyblosxom.initialize.
>> tools.cleanup() is called from a new method I've created,
>> Pyblosxom.cleanup. Pyblosxom.cleanup is called at the end of the
>> Pyblosxom.run* methods.
>>
>>
>> It seems to work nicely.
>> Any other/better ideas how to solve this?
> 
> We can't store stuff on the module level without explicitly associating it 
> with a request.
> 

Hmm ... I don't think that's a problem in this case. All we need from
the config dict are log_file and log_level which are static anyway.
I would have just imported config.py directly if there were a way to
figure out where it is.

> What would happen if we took logging out of the tools module and made it 
> part of the Request object?
> 

We could of course give the request object a util method to get a logger
instance. Although I think it would be handy to have the possibility to
get a logger anywhere. I think of the logging stuff as living in the
application scope not in the request scope. (offcourse for cgi that's +-
the same %-))

Steven



-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click