Logging oddity: handlers mandatory in every single logger?

[Masklinn]

Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
>To add a custom level, I would proceed that way:
>
>logging.ALERT = 45
>logging.addLevelName(logging.ALERT, 'ALERT !!')
>logging.getLogger().log(logging.ALERT, 'test')
>
>Passing a string to the log method as you did is incorrect.

I know it's currently incorrect. My point was more along the line that there was *no reason* for it to be incorrect. logging already contains all the tools for log('PANTS_ON_FIRE') to be allowed

>Regarding your first point, I guess it's anti pattern. One way to do it:
>1/ Configure the root logger with the lowest value 0, so the root logger 
>does not filter any level.
>2/ Configure each of your logger with the correct level
>
>That way you can configure your '0' logger as you (badly :o)) named it 
>with one level, and configure a potential '1' logger with another level. 
>Don't bother with propagation. That way you won't need to duplicate your 
>handlers on every logger.

re logger 0, no need for complex name for a test case (and it allowed me to create easy-to-remember 0.1 and 0.1.2 if needed)

Re your answer, from what I understand you want the root logger to NOTSET and then each child logger with its correct level? But that's not a solution, each and every level will *still* require a handler explicitly configured on it. That's in fact very much my issue: logging refuses that a logger be handler-less in a config file, it's mandatory to configure a handler any time a logger is configured.