Then again, it may be better to just fix this in get_logger by treating name as a fallback option only.
In addition to having to update less files, it'd probably make more sense. If those daemons actually intended to override a user specified log_name setting it would have been clearer to force them to write:
conf['log_name'] = 'object-updater'
self.logger = get_logger(conf)
More than likely the intent is to provide a default log_name if conf doesn't define one - i.e.
self.logger = get_logger(conf, conf.get('log_name', 'object-updater'))
But in this case, there's no reason not to just do that for them inside get_logger, similarly to how run_wsgi accepts a default port to use only if there isn't already one specified in the conf.
I grepped around for calls to get_logger - I think it's probably safe for get_logger to just be updated so that name defaults to swift and is only used when the conf is missing the 'log_name' key.
Then again, it may be better to just fix this in get_logger by treating name as a fallback option only.
In addition to having to update less files, it'd probably make more sense. If those daemons actually intended to override a user specified log_name setting it would have been clearer to force them to write:
conf['log_name'] = 'object-updater'
self.logger = get_logger(conf)
More than likely the intent is to provide a default log_name if conf doesn't define one - i.e. 'log_name' , 'object-updater'))
self.logger = get_logger(conf, conf.get(
But in this case, there's no reason not to just do that for them inside get_logger, similarly to how run_wsgi accepts a default port to use only if there isn't already one specified in the conf.
I grepped around for calls to get_logger - I think it's probably safe for get_logger to just be updated so that name defaults to swift and is only used when the conf is missing the 'log_name' key.