Re: [jboss-as7-dev] manual way to do logging?

Given that my particular project is a maven projec, I'd have to edit my IDE settings. Again, no thanks... For my project at least, there's no set up guide for using it with an IDE. (and there won't ever be because I'm not ever going to use JBoss Logging or anything else that requires a similar dependency). Just load resteasy using a maven structure. On 6/9/12 10:57 AM, David M. Lloyd wrote: > Incorrect - annotation processing happens as a normal part of the javac > build. You just have to have the generator on your classpath when you > compile, same as any other dependency. You don't even need Maven to > make it work; our examples just refer to Maven because it is by far the > most common build system used right now. > > On 06/09/2012 09:32 AM, Bill Burke wrote: >> So, I have to pop out of my IDE and run a maven build just to be able to >> run tests within my IDE? Yikes... Another reason why I just won't use >> JBoss Logging... >> >> On 6/8/12 2:37 PM, Jason T. Greene wrote: >>> On 6/8/12 3:06 AM, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: >>>> That's the crux really. I always bitch when I have to add a log message with JBoss logging compared to the good old log4j. But I would not meet the requirements. >>>> >>>> See it positively, it's annoying enough to add a log or throw an exception that I do it less often and my code is even more efficient :D >>>> The other annoying bit is when your log interface is in a common module and you work on a dependent module. This requires full recompilation and I am often bitten by this with method not found exceptions. >>> >>> We used to have a proxy mode feature for exactly this problem. You would >>> set a sys prop and it would generate dynamic proxies implementing the >>> the source code locales. This was quite a bit slower than the compile >>> generated classes so it was intended to be develop mode only. The idea >>> was that you just set it in your IDE settings and be done with it. >>> >>> It turns out it wasnt used very much, and it relied on runtime >>> annotation retention, so it was killed. If enough people felt it was a >>> problem though we could revisit that. >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >> > >