Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.lang.python > #4300

Re: unpickling derived LogRecord in python 2.7 from python2.6

From "ivdneut@gmail.com" <ivdneut@gmail.com>
Newsgroups comp.lang.python
Subject Re: unpickling derived LogRecord in python 2.7 from python2.6
Date 2011-04-29 01:36 -0700
Organization http://groups.google.com
Message-ID <632d00c3-3dc8-4a10-8ce8-579b5cfcb2e7@j31g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> (permalink)
References <dddb61de-6964-41c4-9f14-d9d1d5fdb2b7@cu4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <ip9gtg$s9p$1@solani.org> <bb7009bd-e93d-470e-9077-9fa12046dd7f@q20g2000vbx.googlegroups.com> <ipb4hd$9rf$1@solani.org>

Show all headers | View raw


On Apr 28, 9:22 am, Peter Otten <__pete...@web.de> wrote:
> Vinay Sajip wrote:
> > On Apr 27, 5:41 pm, Peter Otten <__pete...@web.de> wrote:
>
> >> The Problem is that as of Python 2.7logging.LogRecord has become a
> >> newstyle class which is pickled/unpickled differently. I don't know if
> >> there is an official way to do the conversion, but here's what I've
> >> hacked up. The script can read pickles written with 2.6 in 2.7, but not
> >> the other way round.
> >> [code snipped]
>
> > I don't know about "official", but another way of doing this is to
> > pickle just the LogRecord's __dict__ and send that over the wire. The
> > logging package contains a function makeLogRecord(d) where d is a
> > dict.
>
> You are right, my approach is too complicated and only needed when the OP
> cannot modify the sending script -- which is unlikely.
>
> > This is the approach used by the examples in the library documentation
> > which pickle events for sending across a network:
>
> >http://docs.python.org/howto/logging-cookbook.html#sending-and-receiv...
>
> logging-events-across-a-network
>
>
>
> > The built-in SocketHandler pickles the LogRecord's __dict__ rather
> > than the LogRecord itself, precisely because of the improved
> > interoperability over pickling the instance directly.
>
> As a minimal change ensuring that the logging.LogRecord subclass used by the
> OP is a newstyle class in 2.6 with
>
> class LogRecord(logging.LogRecord, object):
>     #...
>
> should work, too.

I tried this, but it didn't work. Pickling the __dict__ and then use
makeLogRecord does the trick.

Thank you very much for the excellent help,

Ian.

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Find similar


Thread

unpickling derived LogRecord in python 2.7 from python2.6 "ivdneut@gmail.com" <ivdneut@gmail.com> - 2011-04-27 06:56 -0700
  Re: unpickling derived LogRecord in python 2.7 from python2.6 Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> - 2011-04-27 18:41 +0200
    Re: unpickling derived LogRecord in python 2.7 from python2.6 Vinay Sajip <vinay_sajip@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-27 13:39 -0700
      Re: unpickling derived LogRecord in python 2.7 from python2.6 Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> - 2011-04-28 09:22 +0200
        Re: unpickling derived LogRecord in python 2.7 from python2.6 "ivdneut@gmail.com" <ivdneut@gmail.com> - 2011-04-29 01:36 -0700

csiph-web