| msg192181 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) *  |
Date: 2013-07-02 08:41 |
| When starting a service as root, you may want your log files to be created as another user (the service may drop privileges later). It would be nice to have a "chown" option to FileHander. For example it could take either a "username" string, or a ("username", "groupname") tuple. (a similar request may be made for chmod, but umask helps a lot there) This is quite low-priority :) |
|
|
| msg202010 - (view) |
Author: PCManticore (Claudiu.Popa) *  |
Date: 2013-11-03 10:32 |
| Hello. Patch attached. |
|
|
| msg202012 - (view) |
Author: PCManticore (Claudiu.Popa) * |
Date: 2013-11-03 11:19 |
| Added documentation and the chown parameter for the friends of FileHandler. Should tests be added for those classes as well or is it enough to test FileHandler? |
|
|
| msg202141 - (view) |
Author: Vinay Sajip (vinay.sajip) * |
Date: 2013-11-04 14:29 |
| This issue had dropped off my radar, thanks for bringing it back into view. I see that the patch follows Antoine's suggestion of a "chown" parameter, but I'm not sure that's the best way to provide this functionality. What concerns me about a "chown" parameter: 1. It's POSIX only, which makes me not want to add it to the API for all users (even though they don't need to specify it, as it's defaulted). It's not a really common use case, even on POSIX. 2. It makes the argument list for the rotating handlers even more unwieldy than it is at present. While it's not pretty now, I don't want to make it uglier. 3. If other things like this are requested in the future (e.g. "chmod" as mentioned in the original post), then it makes the argument lists longer and longer if this approach is used to satisfy those requirements. Instead, a mixin which redefined _open would seem to fulfil the requirements, and the same strategy could be used to cater for other requirements without any stdlib changes. Of course it requires the developer to do a little bit more work than having the work done for them in the stdlib, but I think it's reasonable to meet the requirement this way as it's relatively uncommon. I don't mind adding an working example of this to the cookbook, making it even less work for developers to adopt this approach. While the _open method is technically private as it begins with an underscore, I have no problem letting subclasses override it. Also, ISTM that your patch would fail at the shutil.chown call if the log file didn't already exist, which is a not uncommon scenario. |
|
|
| msg202142 - (view) |
Author: PCManticore (Claudiu.Popa) * |
Date: 2013-11-04 14:35 |
| Sure, thanks for the review, it's really insightful regarding API design. I will try to contribute an example for the cookbook later this day. |
|
|
| msg202157 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2013-11-04 19:24 |
| > Instead, a mixin which redefined _open would seem to fulfil the > requirements, and the same strategy could be used to cater for other > requirements without any stdlib changes. One desireable aspect is to still be able to configure logging using dictConfig(). I don't know if a mixin could enable this. |
|
|
| msg202159 - (view) |
Author: Vinay Sajip (vinay.sajip) * |
Date: 2013-11-04 19:48 |
| If you are using dictConfig(), you don't need to specify a class for your handler: you can specify a callable which configures and returns a handler, and the callable could be a function which created a file with appropriate ownership and then returned a FileHandler or subclass thereof which used that file. I can update the cookbook with suitable examples, with and without using a mixin. |
|
|
| msg202160 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2013-11-04 19:55 |
| > If you are using dictConfig(), you don't need to specify a class for > your handler: you can specify a callable which configures and returns > a handler, and the callable could be a function which created a file > with appropriate ownership and then returned a FileHandler or subclass > thereof which used that file. But can I pass the file owner in the config dict? |
|
|
| msg202174 - (view) |
Author: Vinay Sajip (vinay.sajip) * |
Date: 2013-11-04 21:11 |
| > But can I pass the file owner in the config dict? You should be able to; I'll address that in the example. |
|
|
| msg202201 - (view) |
Author: Roundup Robot (python-dev) |
Date: 2013-11-05 10:03 |
| New changeset 5636366db039 by Vinay Sajip in branch '3.3': Issue #18345: Added cookbook example illustrating handler customisation. http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/5636366db039 New changeset 388cc713ad33 by Vinay Sajip in branch 'default': Closes #18345: Merged documentation update from 3.3. http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/388cc713ad33 |
|
|
| msg202202 - (view) |
Author: Vinay Sajip (vinay.sajip) * |
Date: 2013-11-05 10:06 |
| When the online docs update, the cookbook entry should appear at http://docs.python.org/dev/howto/logging-cookbook.html#customising-handlers-with-dictconfig |
|
|