Log within whole program
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
How do I log everywhere in the program, without having to declare ILogger parameter in every class? I would like best practice to log everywhere within program.
MyClass(ILogger<MyClass> logger)
{
_logger = logger;
}
Should I utilize a static class as described here?
public class ApplicationLogging
{
private static ILoggerFactory _Factory = null;
public static void ConfigureLogger(ILoggerFactory factory)
{
factory.AddDebug(LogLevel.None).AddStackify();
factory.AddFile("logFileFromHelper.log"); //serilog file extension
}
public static ILoggerFactory LoggerFactory
{
get
{
if (_Factory == null)
{
_Factory = new LoggerFactory();
ConfigureLogger(_Factory);
}
return _Factory;
}
set { _Factory = value; }
}
public static ILogger CreateLogger() => LoggerFactory.CreateLogger();
}
c# logging asp.net-core
edited Nov 12 at 6:03
Uwe Keim
27.4k30128210
asked Nov 12 at 5:51
JoeThomas
677
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
How do I log everywhere in the program, without having to declare ILogger parameter in every class? I would like best practice to log everywhere within program.
MyClass(ILogger<MyClass> logger)
{
_logger = logger;
}
Should I utilize a static class as described here?
public class ApplicationLogging
{
private static ILoggerFactory _Factory = null;
public static void ConfigureLogger(ILoggerFactory factory)
{
factory.AddDebug(LogLevel.None).AddStackify();
factory.AddFile("logFileFromHelper.log"); //serilog file extension
}
public static ILoggerFactory LoggerFactory
{
get
{
if (_Factory == null)
{
_Factory = new LoggerFactory();
ConfigureLogger(_Factory);
}
return _Factory;
}
set { _Factory = value; }
}
public static ILogger CreateLogger() => LoggerFactory.CreateLogger();
}
c# logging asp.net-core
edited Nov 12 at 6:03
Uwe Keim
27.4k30128210
asked Nov 12 at 5:51
JoeThomas
677
without having to declare ILogger parameter in every classWhat is your concern with doing this?
– mjwills
Nov 12 at 5:52
Take a look at PostSharp : doc.postsharp.net/add-logging
– Amin Mozhgani
Nov 12 at 5:57
it seems kind of redundant to me, I have around 50+ classes in my program
– JoeThomas
Nov 12 at 5:58
1
Firstly, "I would like best practice to log everywhere within program" don't do that, not everything needs to log, you shouldn't need to be passing a logger to every class, unless this is all top level code. Secondly, the world these days has gone DI, and its very common to inject the logger in when you need it.
– TheGeneral
Nov 12 at 5:58
1
The main issue with using astaticis that mocking the logger in unit tests is harder (which, in my mind, is a big issue). If that is not a concern for you, then go ahead.
– mjwills
Nov 12 at 6:03
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
How do I log everywhere in the program, without having to declare ILogger parameter in every class? I would like best practice to log everywhere within program.
MyClass(ILogger<MyClass> logger)
{
_logger = logger;
}
Should I utilize a static class as described here?
public class ApplicationLogging
{
private static ILoggerFactory _Factory = null;
public static void ConfigureLogger(ILoggerFactory factory)
{
factory.AddDebug(LogLevel.None).AddStackify();
factory.AddFile("logFileFromHelper.log"); //serilog file extension
}
public static ILoggerFactory LoggerFactory
{
get
{
if (_Factory == null)
{
_Factory = new LoggerFactory();
ConfigureLogger(_Factory);
}
return _Factory;
}
set { _Factory = value; }
}
public static ILogger CreateLogger() => LoggerFactory.CreateLogger();
}
c# logging asp.net-core
edited Nov 12 at 6:03
Uwe Keim
27.4k30128210
asked Nov 12 at 5:51
JoeThomas
677
How do I log everywhere in the program, without having to declare ILogger parameter in every class? I would like best practice to log everywhere within program.
MyClass(ILogger<MyClass> logger)
{
_logger = logger;
}
Should I utilize a static class as described here?
public class ApplicationLogging
{
private static ILoggerFactory _Factory = null;
public static void ConfigureLogger(ILoggerFactory factory)
{
factory.AddDebug(LogLevel.None).AddStackify();
factory.AddFile("logFileFromHelper.log"); //serilog file extension
}
public static ILoggerFactory LoggerFactory
{
get
{
if (_Factory == null)
{
_Factory = new LoggerFactory();
ConfigureLogger(_Factory);
}
return _Factory;
}
set { _Factory = value; }
}
public static ILogger CreateLogger() => LoggerFactory.CreateLogger();
}
c# logging asp.net-core
c# logging asp.net-core
edited Nov 12 at 6:03
Uwe Keim
27.4k30128210
asked Nov 12 at 5:51
JoeThomas
677
edited Nov 12 at 6:03
Uwe Keim
27.4k30128210
asked Nov 12 at 5:51
JoeThomas
677
edited Nov 12 at 6:03
Uwe Keim
27.4k30128210
edited Nov 12 at 6:03
Uwe Keim
27.4k30128210
edited Nov 12 at 6:03
Uwe Keim
27.4k30128210
27.4k30128210
asked Nov 12 at 5:51
JoeThomas
677
asked Nov 12 at 5:51
JoeThomas
677
asked Nov 12 at 5:51
JoeThomas
677
677
without having to declare ILogger parameter in every classWhat is your concern with doing this?
– mjwills
Nov 12 at 5:52
Take a look at PostSharp : doc.postsharp.net/add-logging
– Amin Mozhgani
Nov 12 at 5:57
it seems kind of redundant to me, I have around 50+ classes in my program
– JoeThomas
Nov 12 at 5:58
1
Firstly, "I would like best practice to log everywhere within program" don't do that, not everything needs to log, you shouldn't need to be passing a logger to every class, unless this is all top level code. Secondly, the world these days has gone DI, and its very common to inject the logger in when you need it.
– TheGeneral
Nov 12 at 5:58
1
The main issue with using astaticis that mocking the logger in unit tests is harder (which, in my mind, is a big issue). If that is not a concern for you, then go ahead.
– mjwills
Nov 12 at 6:03
add a comment |
without having to declare ILogger parameter in every classWhat is your concern with doing this?
– mjwills
Nov 12 at 5:52
Take a look at PostSharp : doc.postsharp.net/add-logging
– Amin Mozhgani
Nov 12 at 5:57
it seems kind of redundant to me, I have around 50+ classes in my program
– JoeThomas
Nov 12 at 5:58
1
Firstly, "I would like best practice to log everywhere within program" don't do that, not everything needs to log, you shouldn't need to be passing a logger to every class, unless this is all top level code. Secondly, the world these days has gone DI, and its very common to inject the logger in when you need it.
– TheGeneral
Nov 12 at 5:58
1
The main issue with using astaticis that mocking the logger in unit tests is harder (which, in my mind, is a big issue). If that is not a concern for you, then go ahead.
– mjwills
Nov 12 at 6:03
without having to declare ILogger parameter in every class What is your concern with doing this?– mjwills
Nov 12 at 5:52
without having to declare ILogger parameter in every class What is your concern with doing this?– mjwills
Nov 12 at 5:52
Take a look at PostSharp : doc.postsharp.net/add-logging
– Amin Mozhgani
Nov 12 at 5:57
Take a look at PostSharp : doc.postsharp.net/add-logging
– Amin Mozhgani
Nov 12 at 5:57
it seems kind of redundant to me, I have around 50+ classes in my program
– JoeThomas
Nov 12 at 5:58
it seems kind of redundant to me, I have around 50+ classes in my program
– JoeThomas
Nov 12 at 5:58
1
1
Firstly, "I would like best practice to log everywhere within program" don't do that, not everything needs to log, you shouldn't need to be passing a logger to every class, unless this is all top level code. Secondly, the world these days has gone DI, and its very common to inject the logger in when you need it.
– TheGeneral
Nov 12 at 5:58
Firstly, "I would like best practice to log everywhere within program" don't do that, not everything needs to log, you shouldn't need to be passing a logger to every class, unless this is all top level code. Secondly, the world these days has gone DI, and its very common to inject the logger in when you need it.
– TheGeneral
Nov 12 at 5:58
1
1
The main issue with using a
static is that mocking the logger in unit tests is harder (which, in my mind, is a big issue). If that is not a concern for you, then go ahead.– mjwills
Nov 12 at 6:03
The main issue with using a
static is that mocking the logger in unit tests is harder (which, in my mind, is a big issue). If that is not a concern for you, then go ahead.– mjwills
Nov 12 at 6:03
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
I think it's not a good idea to use a logger a static dependency. Personally, I would inject it in the constructor of the class. Why? Well, static dependencies in form of a static property have the following problems:
In the case of unit tests, they are hard to mock. If you inject the logger in the CTOR you can libs like Moq to change the logging to e.g. stdout (ok, that's also possible with e.g. log4net's config file).
Using static properties can make your code "non-determistic". Why? A static property is initialized when the class is referenced the first time. So if you change your code the static property initialization may be called earlier or later. If you've a bug in the initialization it will be hard to find. Why? Because you've no logging.
If you want to change the logging framework, you've to find all static references to it. Ok, that's not a that hard task with grep or modern IDEs. However, if you inject the logger dependency the compiler will show (based on the compile errors) which lines of code you've to change (simply remove the logger reference from the solution file).
Hope that helps.
answered Nov 12 at 6:05
Moerwald
2,82841440
thanks, I guess I will pass it as a parameter in every class then, just wanted to confirm
– JoeThomas
Nov 12 at 6:06
Try to use dependency injection via a DI container like autofac (autofac.org). Pro: if done correctly most parts of your classes are constructed in one place of your program.
– Moerwald
Nov 12 at 6:08
@JoeThomas, if you're happy with above answer, please mark it as answer for your question. Thx
– Moerwald
Nov 12 at 6:21
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53256524%2flog-within-whole-program%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
I think it's not a good idea to use a logger a static dependency. Personally, I would inject it in the constructor of the class. Why? Well, static dependencies in form of a static property have the following problems:
In the case of unit tests, they are hard to mock. If you inject the logger in the CTOR you can libs like Moq to change the logging to e.g. stdout (ok, that's also possible with e.g. log4net's config file).
Using static properties can make your code "non-determistic". Why? A static property is initialized when the class is referenced the first time. So if you change your code the static property initialization may be called earlier or later. If you've a bug in the initialization it will be hard to find. Why? Because you've no logging.
If you want to change the logging framework, you've to find all static references to it. Ok, that's not a that hard task with grep or modern IDEs. However, if you inject the logger dependency the compiler will show (based on the compile errors) which lines of code you've to change (simply remove the logger reference from the solution file).
Hope that helps.
answered Nov 12 at 6:05
Moerwald
2,82841440
thanks, I guess I will pass it as a parameter in every class then, just wanted to confirm
– JoeThomas
Nov 12 at 6:06
Try to use dependency injection via a DI container like autofac (autofac.org). Pro: if done correctly most parts of your classes are constructed in one place of your program.
– Moerwald
Nov 12 at 6:08
@JoeThomas, if you're happy with above answer, please mark it as answer for your question. Thx
– Moerwald
Nov 12 at 6:21
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
I think it's not a good idea to use a logger a static dependency. Personally, I would inject it in the constructor of the class. Why? Well, static dependencies in form of a static property have the following problems:
In the case of unit tests, they are hard to mock. If you inject the logger in the CTOR you can libs like Moq to change the logging to e.g. stdout (ok, that's also possible with e.g. log4net's config file).
Using static properties can make your code "non-determistic". Why? A static property is initialized when the class is referenced the first time. So if you change your code the static property initialization may be called earlier or later. If you've a bug in the initialization it will be hard to find. Why? Because you've no logging.
If you want to change the logging framework, you've to find all static references to it. Ok, that's not a that hard task with grep or modern IDEs. However, if you inject the logger dependency the compiler will show (based on the compile errors) which lines of code you've to change (simply remove the logger reference from the solution file).
Hope that helps.
answered Nov 12 at 6:05
Moerwald
2,82841440
thanks, I guess I will pass it as a parameter in every class then, just wanted to confirm
– JoeThomas
Nov 12 at 6:06
Try to use dependency injection via a DI container like autofac (autofac.org). Pro: if done correctly most parts of your classes are constructed in one place of your program.
– Moerwald
Nov 12 at 6:08
@JoeThomas, if you're happy with above answer, please mark it as answer for your question. Thx
– Moerwald
Nov 12 at 6:21
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
I think it's not a good idea to use a logger a static dependency. Personally, I would inject it in the constructor of the class. Why? Well, static dependencies in form of a static property have the following problems:
In the case of unit tests, they are hard to mock. If you inject the logger in the CTOR you can libs like Moq to change the logging to e.g. stdout (ok, that's also possible with e.g. log4net's config file).
Using static properties can make your code "non-determistic". Why? A static property is initialized when the class is referenced the first time. So if you change your code the static property initialization may be called earlier or later. If you've a bug in the initialization it will be hard to find. Why? Because you've no logging.
If you want to change the logging framework, you've to find all static references to it. Ok, that's not a that hard task with grep or modern IDEs. However, if you inject the logger dependency the compiler will show (based on the compile errors) which lines of code you've to change (simply remove the logger reference from the solution file).
Hope that helps.
answered Nov 12 at 6:05
Moerwald
2,82841440
I think it's not a good idea to use a logger a static dependency. Personally, I would inject it in the constructor of the class. Why? Well, static dependencies in form of a static property have the following problems:
In the case of unit tests, they are hard to mock. If you inject the logger in the CTOR you can libs like Moq to change the logging to e.g. stdout (ok, that's also possible with e.g. log4net's config file).
Using static properties can make your code "non-determistic". Why? A static property is initialized when the class is referenced the first time. So if you change your code the static property initialization may be called earlier or later. If you've a bug in the initialization it will be hard to find. Why? Because you've no logging.
If you want to change the logging framework, you've to find all static references to it. Ok, that's not a that hard task with grep or modern IDEs. However, if you inject the logger dependency the compiler will show (based on the compile errors) which lines of code you've to change (simply remove the logger reference from the solution file).
Hope that helps.
answered Nov 12 at 6:05
Moerwald
2,82841440
edited Nov 12 at 6:07
answered Nov 12 at 6:05
Moerwald
2,82841440
answered Nov 12 at 6:05
Moerwald
2,82841440
answered Nov 12 at 6:05
Moerwald
2,82841440
2,82841440
thanks, I guess I will pass it as a parameter in every class then, just wanted to confirm
– JoeThomas
Nov 12 at 6:06
Try to use dependency injection via a DI container like autofac (autofac.org). Pro: if done correctly most parts of your classes are constructed in one place of your program.
– Moerwald
Nov 12 at 6:08
@JoeThomas, if you're happy with above answer, please mark it as answer for your question. Thx
– Moerwald
Nov 12 at 6:21
add a comment |
thanks, I guess I will pass it as a parameter in every class then, just wanted to confirm
– JoeThomas
Nov 12 at 6:06
Try to use dependency injection via a DI container like autofac (autofac.org). Pro: if done correctly most parts of your classes are constructed in one place of your program.
– Moerwald
Nov 12 at 6:08
@JoeThomas, if you're happy with above answer, please mark it as answer for your question. Thx
– Moerwald
Nov 12 at 6:21
thanks, I guess I will pass it as a parameter in every class then, just wanted to confirm
– JoeThomas
Nov 12 at 6:06
thanks, I guess I will pass it as a parameter in every class then, just wanted to confirm
– JoeThomas
Nov 12 at 6:06
Try to use dependency injection via a DI container like autofac (autofac.org). Pro: if done correctly most parts of your classes are constructed in one place of your program.
– Moerwald
Nov 12 at 6:08
Try to use dependency injection via a DI container like autofac (autofac.org). Pro: if done correctly most parts of your classes are constructed in one place of your program.
– Moerwald
Nov 12 at 6:08
@JoeThomas, if you're happy with above answer, please mark it as answer for your question. Thx
– Moerwald
Nov 12 at 6:21
@JoeThomas, if you're happy with above answer, please mark it as answer for your question. Thx
– Moerwald
Nov 12 at 6:21
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53256524%2flog-within-whole-program%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
without having to declare ILogger parameter in every classWhat is your concern with doing this?– mjwills
Nov 12 at 5:52
Take a look at PostSharp : doc.postsharp.net/add-logging
– Amin Mozhgani
Nov 12 at 5:57
it seems kind of redundant to me, I have around 50+ classes in my program
– JoeThomas
Nov 12 at 5:58
1
Firstly, "I would like best practice to log everywhere within program" don't do that, not everything needs to log, you shouldn't need to be passing a logger to every class, unless this is all top level code. Secondly, the world these days has gone DI, and its very common to inject the logger in when you need it.
– TheGeneral
Nov 12 at 5:58
1
The main issue with using a
staticis that mocking the logger in unit tests is harder (which, in my mind, is a big issue). If that is not a concern for you, then go ahead.– mjwills
Nov 12 at 6:03