[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4NET-290?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13633930#comment-13633930
]
Pavel Nedoma commented on LOG4NET-290:
--------------------------------------
I had some time to go through your patch in order to start to add more XmlDoc
comments. But I'd like to talk about the necessity of numerous overloads in the
extension file. Do you think that it's necessary to wrap whole ILog interface
inside ILogExtensions but just with the *Ext suffix? I went through core
implementation and I found out, that the [level]Format(...) methods are doing
the same check in LogImpl, and the [level](object...) methods do the same check
in Logger class and ToString is probably called somewhere deep inside
appenders. So now it makes sense to only have Lamba overload for some advanced
in-place formatting, which I'd still appreciate. However I think that the
content of ILogExtension should be discussed (whether to include only Lamba
overloads, and if so, should we use the *Ext suffix?).
> Add Lambda-based ILog-Extensions (embedded log.IsEnabled)
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LOG4NET-290
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4NET-290
> Project: Log4net
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Core
> Affects Versions: 1.2.10
> Reporter: Lars Corneliussen
> Fix For: 3.5
>
> Attachments: LOG4NET-290.patch
>
>
> This statement:
> if (log.IsDebugEnabled) log.DebugFormat("x: {0}", 123)
> Could be nicely shortened to:
> log.Debug( m=>m("value= {0}", obj.Value) );
> I'm already apache committer (NPanday Incubator Project) and would be happy
> to help with this interface. The simplest thing would be to offer it as
> static Extension-Methods to ILog.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
