OK, I hadn't seen the "delay" parameter until now. I guess this is new
in Python 2.6? Good that there is already a way to avoid lots of empty
files, though it'll be a while before I can assume Python 2.6
unfortunately... that probably renders point (a) moot.

As for (b), do you not think a large number of users will not bother
with the hierarchical aspect of the logging framework? I'd say you need
to be pretty advanced/large scale before that becomes interesting.

I don't really understand why accepting such a patch would be a problem,
as it's a simple change that wouldn't break backwards compatibility.
It's surely got to be better than exiting with a python stack, which is
what happens today.

(To give an idea of the bloat-factor, since migrating to the logging
framework a typical configuration file for my system is now roughly 3
times the size it used to be for the same functionality)