Okay, thanks for the clarification everyone.
How computationally expensive is something simple like:
Log.Debug( "Couldn't connect to: " + connectionString );
That's the majority of what my messages would look like.
Thanks!
-Tom
On 11/18/05, Matthew Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "computationally expensive", i.e., concatenating strings
>
>
> On 11/18/05, Castrianni, Chris {PBSG} < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Good morning Tom,
> >
> > My understanding is that you should use IsXXXEnabled for situations
> > where "message" is computationally expensive to create.
> >
> > --Chris
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tom Nichols [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 8:50 AM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: Checking IsDebugEnabled before calling Debug()?
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was going through the examples and saw this:
> > // Log a debug message. Test if debug is enabled before
> > // attempting to log the message. This is not required but
> > // can make running without logging faster.
> > if (log.IsDebugEnabled ) log.Debug("This is a debug message");
> >
> > My question is, why not just check this in LogImpl.Debug() , i.e.
> > virtual public void Debug(object message)
> > {
> > if( this.IsDebugEnabled ) Logger.Log(ThisDeclaringType,
> > m_levelDebug, message, null);
> > }
> >
> > And then of course do the same for DebugFormat, Info, Warn, etc. etc.
> > I haven't dug much into the code but I'm interested in using the
> > framework. It just seems to me that if you really get a performance
> > enhancement from testing if IsDebugEnabled before calling it, it would
> > make more sense to save that step everywhere you make that Debug()
> > call in paractice.
> >
> > I'm guessing there's a good reason why, but could someone tell me?
> >
> > Thanks.
> > -Tom
> >
>
>
