fluffynuts commented on pull request #73: URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/pull/73#issuecomment-952597091
@tschettler before moving forward with any changes to log4net, I'd ask that you try to achieve these goals in user-land (ie, not in log4net, but in the consuming project). The term "DI" is being used here, but it's more like service-locator, which can be accomplished anywhere. True DI would require that log4net buy into the DI system from the get-go. IOW, I'm still not absolutely convinced of the need, and since I don't see it, I'm asking you to provide a comparison between how what you want would currently be accomplished (as I'm sure it is being accomplished already) vs the change in user-land code if log4net had this mechanism. The most secure code is none at all. Before embarking on a best-effort to make the code secure, I'd like to see how the changes potentially make life better for the consumer. I'm not asking out of obtuseness, but rather out of an abundance of caution seasoned with a sprinkling of curiousity. Just because I don't understand a position, it doesn't make that position invalid - it may just mean that I need to learn more. I'm a huge fan of DI, done correctly, and majorly cautious of service-locator, having seen the obscure spaghetti the pattern produces. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
