[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4NET-400?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Gian Marco Gherardi updated LOG4NET-400:
----------------------------------------
Description:
Hi, I'm trying the feature LOG4NET-290, but seems that the following format
doesn't work:
log.Debug( m=>m("value= {0}", obj.Value) );
Instead this seems the correct signature:
log.Debug(() => string.Format("value= {0}", obj.Value));
That is not as convenient IMO. Another thing I've noticed is that there are
also many extension methods that merely proxy the methods already supported by
plain ILog. What's the reason for that? I mean ILog methods already skip
logging if level is not active.
was:
Hi, I'm trying the feature LOG4NET-394, but seems that the following format
doesn't work:
log.Debug( m=>m("value= {0}", obj.Value) );
Instead this seems the correct signature:
log.Debug(() => string.Format("value= {0}", obj.Value));
That is not as convenient IMO. Another thing I've noticed is that there are
also many extension methods that merely proxy the methods already supported by
plain ILog. What's the reason for that? I mean ILog methods already skip
logging if level is not active.
> ILog extension methods doesnt work as expected
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LOG4NET-400
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4NET-400
> Project: Log4net
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Gian Marco Gherardi
>
> Hi, I'm trying the feature LOG4NET-290, but seems that the following format
> doesn't work:
> log.Debug( m=>m("value= {0}", obj.Value) );
> Instead this seems the correct signature:
> log.Debug(() => string.Format("value= {0}", obj.Value));
> That is not as convenient IMO. Another thing I've noticed is that there are
> also many extension methods that merely proxy the methods already supported
> by plain ILog. What's the reason for that? I mean ILog methods already skip
> logging if level is not active.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)
