[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4NET-400?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13792457#comment-13792457
]
Dominik Psenner commented on LOG4NET-400:
-----------------------------------------
The bug description of LOG4NET-290 was not implemented one-to-one. The method
signatures have the suffix "Ext", so in your example it would be "DebugExt".
{quote}That is not as convenient IMO.{quote}
If that's not convenient for you, you dont have to use that syntax. Here is the
list of all available overloads:
http://logging.apache.org/log4net/release/sdk/log4net.Util.ILogExtensionsMethods.html
{quote}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?{quote}
http://logging.apache.org/log4net/release/faq.html#perf-not-logging
{quote}I mean ILog methods already skip logging if level is not active.{quote}
The ILog *interface* does not skip logging if the level is not active.
Would you please explain what work should be done to resolve this issue? To me
it looks more like a question that could have been asked on the mailing list.
> 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)
