Hey guys, Just wanted to share my plans regarding logbook support in Flask. As you know Flask currently configures a logging logger but I am not very happy with the stdlib's logging module. My plan is to remove any kind of support for the stdlib's logging package until Flask 1.0. Here is how it's supposed to work like: Flask 0.7 introduces a new parameter to __init__ called 'logging_system'. The default is 'logging' but it can be switched to 'logbook' to opt-in logbook support and 'none' to disable logging. Flask 0.8 starts warning that the default will switch to 'logbook' in 0.9 Flask 0.9 Switches the default to 'logbook'. Flask 1.0 Makes the parameter a noop. The 'none' setting will then be automatically detected when logbook is not installed. A non-configured logbook setup in production mode has no real overhead so there will be no reason for an explicit setting. If the parameter is specified, Flask will send out a warning that it's soon to be removed. Flask 1.2 Will actually remove that parameter. Now unfortunately that means with every version of Flask behavior will slightly change, but it has the advantage that we will not do a quick switch and people can adapt. The alternative is to drop support for logging right now and tell people to upgrade their logging setups to logbook. In general, logging messages to the stdlib's logging library will still work if logbook is in use, but the logging library's handlers will never be invoked. The branch for the upcoming implementation of logbook support is called "new-logging" and can be found on github. Regards, Armin
What I care is when 1.0 is released, hope that everyday when I wake up . 2010/9/13 Armin Ronacher <armin.ronacher@active-4.com> > Hey guys, > > > Regards, > Armin >
[Armin Ronacher, 2010-09-13] > The alternative is to drop support for > logging right now and tell people to upgrade their logging setups to > logbook. is logbook stable enough? -- Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer www.ozarowski.pl www.griffith.cc www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645
> is logbook stable enough?
Logbook's design is relatively simple and foolproof especially compared
to logging so there is not really a lot of stuff which could be
unstable.
Also I wouldn't focus too much on the version numbers, even werkzeug is
still 0.x, yet I doubt anybody would even worry about it's stability.
[Daniel Neuhäuser, 2010-09-17] > Logbook's design is relatively simple and foolproof especially compared > to logging so there is not really a lot of stuff which could be > unstable. I was asking mostly about API > Also I wouldn't focus too much on the version numbers, even werkzeug is > still 0.x, yet I doubt anybody would even worry about it's stability. I don't care about version numbers much (as long as versioning schema is not changed, specially if it follows PEP 386). I care about stable API/ABI a lot (something 3rd party Python module authors do not care much about, unfortunately) -- Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer www.ozarowski.pl www.griffith.cc www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645
Hi, There will be a release this week for 0.2 which has a finalized API. I am just currently toying with an additional stack that would allow some nifty things but might slow down the execution which is why that is not merged/released so far. Also I have yet to bikeshed about the final name for NestedSetup :) Regards, Armin (sent from a handheld device) On 13.09.2010, at 16:33, Piotr Ozarowski <ozarow@gmail.com> wrote: > [Armin Ronacher, 2010-09-13] >> The alternative is to drop support for >> logging right now and tell people to upgrade their logging setups to >> logbook. > > is logbook stable enough? > -- > Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer > www.ozarowski.pl www.griffith.cc www.debian.org > GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645
On Sep 13, 2010, at 7:33 AM, Piotr Ozarowski wrote: > [Armin Ronacher, 2010-09-13] >> The alternative is to drop support for >> logging right now and tell people to upgrade their logging setups to >> logbook. > > is logbook stable enough? If Armin is willing to maintain a logging package, I would much rather use that one than the stdlib version. I think active development on a lib is always better than a stagnant library. Besides, how stable is any of this code? We're all using versions < 1.0 here. Now is the time to bring in new features such as logbook. --Dan
>> >> is logbook stable enough? Let's find out. +1 for logbook.
Great ! During your presence at the DjangoCon and with your slideshow about logbook, I was a question. When will we use LogBook into Flask. Now I have my answer. Thanks Stéphane On 09/13/2010 02:47 PM, Armin Ronacher wrote: > Hey guys, > > Just wanted to share my plans regarding logbook support in Flask. As > you know Flask currently configures a logging logger but I am not very > happy with the stdlib's logging module. > > My plan is to remove any kind of support for the stdlib's logging > package until Flask 1.0. Here is how it's supposed to work like: > > Flask 0.7 > introduces a new parameter to __init__ called 'logging_system'. The > default is 'logging' but it can be switched to 'logbook' to opt-in > logbook support and 'none' to disable logging. > > Flask 0.8 > starts warning that the default will switch to 'logbook' in 0.9 > > Flask 0.9 > Switches the default to 'logbook'. > > Flask 1.0 > Makes the parameter a noop. The 'none' setting will then be > automatically detected when logbook is not installed. A > non-configured logbook setup in production mode has no real > overhead so there will be no reason for an explicit setting. > If the parameter is specified, Flask will send out a warning > that it's soon to be removed. > > Flask 1.2 > Will actually remove that parameter. > > Now unfortunately that means with every version of Flask behavior will > slightly change, but it has the advantage that we will not do a quick > switch and people can adapt. The alternative is to drop support for > logging right now and tell people to upgrade their logging setups to > logbook. > > In general, logging messages to the stdlib's logging library will still > work if logbook is in use, but the logging library's handlers will never > be invoked. > > The branch for the upcoming implementation of logbook support is called > "new-logging" and can be found on github. > > > Regards, > Armin