Reply to thread

Message

about logging exceptions vs code cleanliness.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7046399/inject-logging-dependency-with-castle-windsor

just add a attribute to the method u want logged in case of exceptions and avoid the usual code noise with try-catch exceptions.

now thats nice

Another thing is -- at work I'm currently replacing a hardcoded logging impl. with an abstracted impl.
We want to be able to change to any kind of logging framework per app config.

I figured the castle windsor (CW) framework had some logging framework abstraction possibilities.

and it had :=)

<facilities>




so when I use CW to resolve a registered assembly/class they will get an instance of ILogger injected into its constructor.

very neat indeed.
CW has these inbuilt abstractions for the following logging frameworks.

loggingApi="null|console|diagnostics|web|nlog|log4net|custom"

with the 'custom' one we can create our own logger in the future and replace it real easy like.

/gibman

<blockquote data-quote="gibman" data-source="post: 918330" data-attributes="member: 25430">about logging exceptions vs code cleanliness.&nbsp;<a href="http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7046399/inject-logging-dependency-with-castle-windsor" target="_blank">http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7046399/inject-logging-dependency-with-castle-windsor</a>&nbsp;just add a attribute to the method u want logged in case of exceptions and avoid the usual code noise with try-catch exceptions.&nbsp;now thats nice <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp;Another thing is -- at work I'm currently replacing a hardcoded logging impl. with an abstracted impl.We want to be able to change to any kind of logging framework per app config.&nbsp;I figured the castle windsor (CW) framework had some logging framework abstraction possibilities.&nbsp;and it had :=)&nbsp;&lt;facilities&gt;&nbsp;&lt;!--- log4net logging, see log.config for log4net options --&gt;&lt;!--&lt;facility id=&quot;loggingfacility&quot;type=&quot;Castle.Facilities.Logging.LoggingFacility, Castle.Facilities.Logging&quot;loggingApi=&quot;log4net&quot;configFile=&quot;log.config&quot;/&gt;--&gt;&nbsp;so when I use CW to resolve a registered assembly/class they will get an instance of ILogger injected into its constructor.&nbsp;very neat indeed.CW has these inbuilt abstractions for the following logging frameworks.&nbsp;loggingApi=&quot;null|console|diagnostics|web|nlog|log4net|custom&quot;&nbsp;with the 'custom' one we can create our own logger in the future and replace it real easy like.&nbsp;/gibman</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gibman, post: 918330, member: 25430"] about logging exceptions vs code cleanliness. [url]http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7046399/inject-logging-dependency-with-castle-windsor[/url] just add a attribute to the method u want logged in case of exceptions and avoid the usual code noise with try-catch exceptions. now thats nice :) Another thing is -- at work I'm currently replacing a hardcoded logging impl. with an abstracted impl. We want to be able to change to any kind of logging framework per app config. I figured the castle windsor (CW) framework had some logging framework abstraction possibilities. and it had :=) <facilities>   so when I use CW to resolve a registered assembly/class they will get an instance of ILogger injected into its constructor. very neat indeed. CW has these inbuilt abstractions for the following logging frameworks. loggingApi="null|console|diagnostics|web|nlog|log4net|custom" with the 'custom' one we can create our own logger in the future and replace it real easy like. /gibman [/QUOTE]