[Python-Dev] PEP 282 and Python Logging: What Next? (original) (raw)

Vinay Sajip vinay_sajip@red-dove.com
Mon, 15 Apr 2002 03:04:39 +0100

Almost exactly a month ago I released a logging module which, by dint of drawing from the same influences (log4j, java.util.logging), was fairly closely aligned with PEP 282 (written by Trent Mick). And in that month, suggestions, patches and bug reports have been gratefully received from the community, which have helped to remove some of the rough edges from the module.

In PEP 283 (Python 2.3 Release Schedule), PEP 282 is mentioned as one of the planned features for 2.3. It also gets a thumbs up from Guido in the Parade of the PEPs, in that he expresses a hope that PEP 282 can be implemented in 2.3. Clearly, as author of a module which pretty much does everything that 282 calls for (and then some), I'd like the module to be accepted into the standard library and become part of 2.3. I do hope I'm not being too presumptuous in suggesting this, and putting forward my logging module as a reference implementation for PEP 282. Assuming that I'm not ...

Being new to the Python enhancement process, I read PEPs 1 and 2. The section in PEP 2 entitled "Acceptance Procedure" talks about the need for a library PEP and a reference implementation. PEP 1 says that the PEP should be accepted before work is started on a reference implementation; however, in this case, since the PEP and the implementation were independently implemented, the latter already exists and in some areas covers ground which is not addressed in detail in the PEP. It's also true that while Trent Mick is the author/champion of the PEP, I am the author/champion of the reference implementation.

Comments that were made on the PEP on Python-dev have been generally favourable, the main negatives focusing on lack of detail in one or two areas (e.g. configuration) and the absence of concrete APIs. IMO the concrete API question should be able to be settled now that an implementation exists and is (apparently) proving useful for quite a few people. There are also minor variations (e.g in naming) between implementation and PEP, which need reconciling. The PEP can also be fleshed out in areas (such as configuration) which were not detailed enough for some reviewers.

The PEP hasn't been updated since February, and is still in draft status. Guessing that Trent is probably busy on other stuff, on a couple of occasions I've asked for his plans and offered him assistance in updating the PEP and getting it ready for submission, but for whatever reason I've not had any responses. So I'm wondering - what happens next, in terms of PEP acceptance and integrating the module into 2.3? I'd certainly like to move things along and have time available to make things happen.

The status of the module is that the implementation is largely feature complete (to my biased view), and has had a moderate amount of testing, both by me and by other users, with no significant fallout having been reported. Documentation is largely in docstrings (practically everything has a docstring - about a third of the module's length is docstrings) and I'll be happy to work it up into LaTeX for inclusion with the standard library docs. There is some work on packaging still to do (it's still in one file and roughly the same size as pydoc; I've not had any feedback as to whether core and handlers should be separated). In terms of testing - there is a bevy of test scripts for testing particular features of the module, which are part of the current distribution at

http://www.red-dove.com/python_logging.html

Please advise on what you think should happen next.

Regards

Vinay Sajip