# What if (?) Monty had a live view

**URL:** https://forum.thousandbrains.org/t/what-if-monty-had-a-live-view/924
**Category:** Monty Code
**Created:** [January 4, 2026, 11:45pm UTC](https://forum.thousandbrains.org/t/what-if-monty-had-a-live-view/924 "2026-01-04T23:45:03Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 31

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![tslominski](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forum.thousandbrains.org/tslominski/32/5_2.png) [@tslominski](https://forum.thousandbrains.org/u/tslominski)
#### Post date: [January 7, 2026, 9:28pm UTC](https://forum.thousandbrains.org/t/what-if-monty-had-a-live-view/924/31 "2026-01-07T21:28:28Z")

</div>

> [@DLed](#):
>
> So, in what you propose it’s a custom interface but only with one sink - the logger with the ` __name__ `

I think there’s two sinks. One for logs, and one for telemetry. This is so that we have separate domains of configuration. I haven’t given it too much tought, but I was thinking the telemetry sink would be a logger with the name `logging.getLogger(f"telemetry.{ __name__ }")`. I _think_ that would give us all the equivalent control fidelity as normal logs without conflicts.

Possibly, because they’re so different, a third domain of snapshots `logging.getLogger(f"snapshots.{ __name__ }")`, but that’s just a not yet fully thought out escape valve in case we need yet another layer of control over data emission.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.thousandbrains.org/t/what-if-monty-had-a-live-view/924)._