Docs: Docs for Microsoft.Extensions (Configuration, Dependency Injection, Logging) packages

[petroemil]

As of now, I believe these packages are maintained by the ASP.NET team and their documentation is also only available inside the ASP.NET Core section (Configuration, Dependency Injection, Logging), even though these are not ASP.NET Core specific libraries and are used by a number of other projects.

It would be nice if there would be a more generic introduction to these libraries in the .NET Core Guide section (for people building their own apps/services/libraries), and the ASP.NET Core (or any other project) docs could refer to that and just extend it with framework/library specific examples.

Adding a task list

Edit by @Rick-Anderson
~Port over all .NET content from ASP.NET Core repo - .NET fundamentals / Microsoft Extensions:~
Create .NET content versions of content in the ASP.NET Core repo - .NET fundamentals / Microsoft Extensions:

• [x] [Configuration](https://github.com/dotnet/docs/pull/20598)
• [x] [Generic Host](https://github.com/dotnet/docs/pull/20697)
• [x] [Dependency injection](https://github.com/dotnet/docs/pull/20758)
• [x] [Logging](https://github.com/dotnet/docs/pull/20782)
• [x] [Options pattern](https://github.com/dotnet/docs/pull/20813)

[mairaw]

Thanks @petroemil for your feedback. @Rick-Anderson @csharpfritz what do you guys think?

[Rick-Anderson]

@petroemil sounds like a good idea. After the .NET Core version were written, we could refactor the ASP.NET Core versions.

Tie in with https://github.com/aspnet/Docs/issues/5161

[mairaw]

@richlander any thoughts on this request?

[tdykstra]

This has been languishing for more than a year now. In theory it's a great plan, but as a practical matter it might never get implemented as it stands, since it would take a lot of time, and both content teams (.NET and ASP.NET) have extensive backlogs of higher-priority issues.

Here's an alternative approach that might adequately address the issue with much less time investment:

• Create brief introduction docs to publish in the .NET Standard or Core doc set, basically a single paragraph or so about the feature (DI/logging/configuration) that links to the ASP.NET Core doc for information about how to use the feature.
• In each ASP.NET Core doc add section(s) as needed on using the feature outside an ASP.NET app – maybe how to use it with generic host without the web host defaults.
• As part of this approach, I’d incorporate the non-ASP.NET scenarios into the migration docs as well, and get rid of the TOC entry “Logging (not ASP.NET Core)”

[IEvangelist]

Port over all .NET content from ASP.NET Core repo - .NET fundamentals / Microsoft Extensions:

• [x] [Configuration](https://github.com/dotnet/docs/pull/20598)
• [ ] [Generic Host](https://github.com/dotnet/docs/pull/20697)
• [ ] Dependency injection
• [ ] Logging
• [ ] Options pattern

[Rick-Anderson]

Port over all .NET content from ASP.NET Core repo - .NET fundamentals / Microsoft Extensions:

That's not a good idea.

• It looks like 90%+ of the target audience is ASP.NET Core.
• The ASP.NET Core team maintains these, so it's best left in the ASP.NET Core repository.

I agree with Tom's proposal.

[IEvangelist]

That's not a good idea.

Per our call yesterday, and the discussion with Tom - we're moving forward with this for the following reasons:

• New .NET developers coming to our repo need to understand these fundamentals which _are not_ specific to ASP.NET Core
  
  
  
  • This is a gap in our .NET content, we cannot assume that all developers are building web apps
  
  
  • 90%+ is an estimate and there is no data to support that claim
  
  
• All of the Microsoft Extensions were intentionally architected to serve more than just web, there are other workloads that are included, such as but not limited to; Cloud native, Gaming, IoT, Mobile, Desktop, Machine learning, Data, etc.
• Customers _need_ examples of doing these things without ASP.NET Core
• All of these efforts are being tracked / prioritized appropriately for the ".NET 5 Wave"