Allow Step to be used in a non-IDisposable pattern.

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Please provide the option for a non-IDisposable version of Step.

This could use a Dictionary<T> internally, or whatever.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by Spoonful...@gmail.com on 9 Jun 2011 at 5:52

[GoogleCodeExporter]

That is, a Dictionary<string, Queue<IDisposable>>

Original comment by Spoonful...@gmail.com on 9 Jun 2011 at 7:18

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I am envisioning something like:

    myProfiler.StepIn("Do a thing.");
    ...
    myProfiler.StepOut("Do a thing.");

Original comment by Spoonful...@gmail.com on 13 Jun 2011 at 7:35

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Sorry, I meant `Dictionary<string, Stack<IDisposable>>`

Original comment by Spoonful...@gmail.com on 15 Jun 2011 at 12:47

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by nrcraver on 20 Jun 2011 at 12:03

• Added labels: Type-Enhancement
• Removed labels: Type-Defect

[GoogleCodeExporter]

An additional benefit of this is that doing this allows one to write an Action 
Filter attribute and use that to decorate your controller actions.

Original comment by codedemonuk on 29 Jun 2011 at 3:09

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I am no following how this differs from ... 

var prof = prof.Step("my step"); 
prof.Dispose(); 

or 

StepIn and StepOut can be trivially implemented using our current constructs. I 
don't want people to need to pick an API it will only cause confusion. Instead 
if you feel strongly about this, just implement wrappers.

Original comment by sam.saff...@gmail.com on 13 Jul 2011 at 4:50

• Changed state: WontFix

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The difference being that he profile need to keep a state of what steps are 
currently executing. Today if using the profiler when implementing it in a Asp 
.Net MVC Filter I as a user of the profiler need to keep this state...

Original comment by polyz...@gmail.com on 13 Jul 2011 at 11:10

[GoogleCodeExporter]

If the `Step` and `Dispose` calls are in different parts of the application, I 
have to put the `IDisposable` in global state.

Original comment by Spoonful...@gmail.com on 13 Jul 2011 at 2:12

[GoogleCodeExporter]

That being said, without a place to put that state, it is IMPOSSIBLE to 
implement those ourselves.

Original comment by Spoonful...@gmail.com on 13 Jul 2011 at 2:13