> -----Original Message----- > From: Drew Burlingame [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 24 March 2005 05:02 > To: 'Log4NET User' > Subject: RE: Release of log4net 1.2.9 beta > > Then if I'm starting a new project and I'm new to log4net, I > should go with 1.2.9. Even if breaking changes are made to > the 1.2 line, I could stay with an non maintained 1.2.9 that > is more stable than an non maintained 1.1.1. > > Beta label aside, does that sound accurate?
Yes. 1.2.9 is the way to go. > > Thanks, > Drew > > -----Original Message----- > From: Nicko Cadell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 9:20 PM > To: Log4NET User > Subject: RE: Release of log4net 1.2.9 beta > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Drew Burlingame [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 23 March 2005 23:06 > > To: 'Log4NET User' > > Subject: RE: Release of log4net 1.2.9 beta > > > > "1.1.1 was released in 2002-04-13. That is the last release > without a > > beta tag, however the 1.2 beta 8 and now beta 9 releases > are of much > > higher quality." > > > > Does this mean that even though 1.2 is beta, they're still a better > > choice than 1.1.1? Are they as stable or more? > > That depends on your criteria. 1.2.9 beta is more stable, and > more functional than any previous release, however it is > still subject to change. We have made some breaking changes > in this release, while we hope that we will not make any > further breaking changes in the 1.2 line, we will if it > improves the library significantly. > > The 1.1.1 release will not change, so if it works for you > then you may want to continue using it, however it is not > being maintained. I know that some people are not able to use > software with a beta label, so they may have to use 1.1.1. > > Nicko > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nicko Cadell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 12:24 PM > > To: Log4NET User > > Subject: RE: Release of log4net 1.2.9 beta > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ron Grabowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: 23 March 2005 15:28 > > > To: Log4NET User > > > Subject: Re: Release of log4net 1.2.9 beta > > > > > > I noticed this page: > > > > > > http://logging.apache.org/log4net/release/manual/internals.html > > > > > > doesn't talk about the new DebugFormat, InfoFormat, etc. > > > members of ILog. > > > > I will update it. > > > > > > > Are these two snippets identical? > > > > > > if(log.IsDebugEnabled) > > > { > > > log.Debug("Entry number: " + i + " is " + > entry[i].ToString()); } > > > > > > log.DebugFormat("Entry number: {0} is {1}", i, entry[i]); > > > > > > > Nearly but not quite. They have the same effect but there > are a couple > > of little differences. > > > > If logging is disabled (i.e. log.IsDebugEnabled returns > > false) then the first method will only evaluate the > log.IsDebugEnabled > > property and then move on. The second method will create an > array for > > the 2 parameters "i" > > and "entry[i]", the value of "entry[i]" will be resolved > (it could be > > expensive, we don't know what the implementation is). > > > > > > > > > What was the design decision behind adding new members to > > ILog rather > > > than overloaded existing ones? Why not just add > > Debug(string format, > > > params object[] args)? > > > > This was discussed a couple of time. > > > > Consider this existing code: > > > > // ILog interface > > void Debug(object message, Exception ex); > > > > // User code > > Debug("Message and exception", new Exception()); > > > > This code is used by lots of people right now. > > If you add this method to ILog: > > > > void Debug(string message, params object[] args); > > > > You then get this compile time error: > > > > error CS0121: The call is ambiguous between the following methods or > > properties: 'ILog.Debug(string, params object[])' and > > 'ILog.Debug(object, System.Exception)' > > > > Therefore it has to have a different method name. This is > similar to > > the StringBuilder which has Appender and AppendFormat methods. > > > > > > > > When was the last version of log4net that wasn't a beta? > > > > > > > 1.1.1 was released in 2002-04-13. That is the last release > without a > > beta tag, however the 1.2 beta 8 and now beta 9 releases > are of much > > higher quality. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Nicko > > > > > > > > > > - Ron > > > > > > --- Nicko Cadell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Greetings, > > > > > > > > Log4net developers are happy to announce the release of > > > log4net 1.2.9 > > > > beta. This, our first release during incubation at > > apache, includes > > > > many enhancements and bug fixes. > > > > > > > > The log4net website documentation has been updated to be in > > > sync with > > > > this release. > > > > > > > > The release notes are available here: > > > > http://logging.apache.org/log4net/release/release-notes.html > > > > > > > > The release can be downloaded here: > > > > http://logging.apache.org/log4net/downloads.html > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > Nicko Cadell > > > > log4net dev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
