Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

improve how we're logging #74

Closed
rubiii opened this issue Dec 21, 2012 · 3 comments
Closed

improve how we're logging #74

rubiii opened this issue Dec 21, 2012 · 3 comments
Labels

Comments

@rubiii
Copy link
Contributor

rubiii commented Dec 21, 2012

currently, you can change HTTPI.log_level to change the log level we are using to log.
if you look at HTTPI.log, it sends the log_level to the Logger.

that's actually what the Logger's severity should be used for. what i did for savon 2.0 (which used the same method before), was to just log with an appropriately low log level like "debug" or "info" and let people change the Logger's severity to specify what they want to see.

@rogerleite
Copy link
Member

I was thinking in something like you did on savon.

By default have a logger to stdout on info severity. Users can change severity on logger instance, like you said.
Logger be an attribute accessor, so users can change to any logger that wants. File, Syslogger ... etc.

Remove log and log_level attributes. Or warn, and say that will be removed on next version.

About what to log, i can only think on these cases:

  • Logs all request options using debug severity.
  • Use something like Common Log Format to log request information using info severity.
  • Logs response (code, headers, body) using debug severity.

@rubiii
Copy link
Contributor Author

rubiii commented Dec 26, 2012

sounds good to me 👍

@pcai
Copy link
Member

pcai commented Jul 6, 2024

Closing - please see #238. thanks

@pcai pcai closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Jul 6, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants