I see almost any difference with JRebel On Mar 9, 6:13 pm, David Pollak <feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com> wrote: > My development cycle has never worked well with JRebel. > > First, I've got so many machines I do development on (5, 3 of which get > wiped each time Ubuntu releases a new version), getting all of those > machines set up with JRebel is something of a pain. Further, having JRebel > run in some cases is *very bad* (e.g., any compilation takes 10x longer with > JRebel). > > So, when I do use JRebel, it is generally a bad experience for me. This is > based on the way I code. First, I use a whole lot of for comprehensions in > my code. The problem with for comprehensions is that they create a bunch of > anonymous inner classes that are named based on the order they appear in the > code. This means that the classes for a given thing change and that leads > to incompatible class change issues. Further, I write a lot of code in > traits that I mix into lots of different classes. This also leads to less > than optimal results in JRebel (more incompatible class change issues.) The > JRebel folks and Martin have worked to address the former issue, have not > completely eliminated it. > > There's a further issue... JRebel doesn't work automatically with Lift. > Technically, it's costless, but you have to register it with ZeroTurnaround, > etc. This means you start using JRebel after you've made a commitment to > Lift rather than during the early stages of using Lift. > > So, based on our recent discussion about onboarding, some discussions Jeppe > and I have been having, and my non-JRebel-friendly development style, I > thought that there might be a way to address all of these issues at once.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to lift...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
