Could we make it optional to provide a ILoggerFactory and resolve it? about microsoft-logging HOT 5 OPEN

I would rather have it as Lazy<ILoggerFactory> but otherwise I like your idea.

from microsoft-logging.

how would that work? My case is that the container already have a registration for ILoggerFactory.

Should i then add one extra registration for Lazy<ILoggerFactory> => InjectionFactory((c)=> new Lazy(c.resolve<ILoggerFactory>()).

Feels like i am missing something.

from microsoft-logging.

Resolving ILoggerFactroy is slow

from microsoft-logging.

It could be something like this:

[InjectionConstructor]
public LoggingExtension()
{
    _loggerFactory = new Lazy<ILoggerFactory>(() => new LoggerFactory());
}
...

Also, user should be able to provide his own instance of ILoggerFactory

from microsoft-logging.

public class MyLoggerFactory : ILoggerFactory
{
    public MyLoggerFactory(IEnumerable<ILoggerFactoryPlugin> plugins){

    }

}


var container = new UnityContainer();


container.RegisterType<ILoggerFactory,MyLoggerFactory>();

container.AddNewExtension<LoggingExtension>();

container.RegisterType<ILoggerFactoryPlugin,MyPlugin>();

var logger = container.resolve<ILogger<Test>>();

I dont understand how your example will work with the given example here. The container knows about ILoggerFactory and it cannot be created at the time of adding the logging extension.

from microsoft-logging.