Message93010
| Author | doughellmann |
|---|---|
| Recipients | doughellmann, eric.smith, exarkun, georg.brandl, michael.foord, ncoghlan, pitrou, r.david.murray, theller, vinay.sajip |
| Date | 2009-09-22.19:30:31 |
| SpamBayes Score | 2.9806614e-08 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1253647832.9.0.972923158129.issue6958@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
@theller, I'm not sure what your point is. I'm asking what the defined behavior is if we provide some sort of global way to run a program with logging configured, and then that app turns around and tries to reconfigure it. Should the last one to call the configuration function(s) win, or the first? I like the idea of adding this feature to the logging module better than building it into the interpreter, but I still think it opens up areas for unexpected behavior, and it would be better to just let each application set up its own logging. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2009-09-22 19:30:32 | doughellmann | set | recipients: + doughellmann, theller, georg.brandl, vinay.sajip, exarkun, ncoghlan, pitrou, eric.smith, r.david.murray, michael.foord |
| 2009-09-22 19:30:32 | doughellmann | set | messageid: <1253647832.9.0.972923158129.issue6958@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2009-09-22 19:30:31 | doughellmann | link | issue6958 messages |
| 2009-09-22 19:30:31 | doughellmann | create | |