Re: CNI vs JNI [Was: [per@bothner.com: Status of Free Java Environment?]]

1999-12-20 Thread Brian Jones
Tom Tromey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Brian I think as far as CVS goes we could set it up so that the ,v Brian files from Classpath's tree get copied over to cygnus regularly Brian in the libjava directory of libgcj. No, we can't do that. This approach fails to consider branches in our

Re: CNI vs JNI [Was: [per@bothner.com: Status of Free Java Environment?]]

1999-12-20 Thread Tom Tromey
Brian I think as far as CVS goes we could set it up so that the ,v Brian files from Classpath's tree get copied over to cygnus regularly Brian in the libjava directory of libgcj. No, we can't do that. This approach fails to consider branches in our repository. It also fails if anybody ever

Re: CNI vs JNI [Was: [per@bothner.com: Status of Free Java Environment?]]

1999-12-19 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Dec 19, 1999, Brian Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't build libgcj at the moment, missing rpath on my system. I also can't find a reference to rpath on Debian's package search engine. I bet this is just a missing backslash somewhere in the Makefile. -- Alexandre Oliva

CNI vs JNI [Was: [per@bothner.com: Status of Free Java Environment?]]

1999-12-17 Thread Jochen Hoenicke
On Dec 16, Stuart Ballard wrote: Paul Fisher wrote: The JNI/CNI issue could be solved post agreeing to cooperate. I don't see the JNI/CNI issue to be terribly important. gcj aims to support JNI, but that code needs to be completed. I personally find CNI to be extremely elegant (about

Re: CNI vs JNI [Was: [per@bothner.com: Status of Free Java Environment?]]

1999-12-17 Thread Anthony Green
Jochen wrote: I think we should only use JNI in classpath. We don't need another abstraction layer, since JNI is abstract enough. One of the goals of the Classpath project is to remain VM-neutral. Using JNI supports this goal. Libgcj, on the other hand, was written solely in support of the

Re: CNI vs JNI [Was: [per@bothner.com: Status of Free Java Environment?]]

1999-12-17 Thread Brian Jones
Anthony Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 2. Merge the projects into a single source base in support of all of our combined goals. [2] is also possible. It will require developing a new build system in which we can specify JNI or CNI bindings. In libgcj, we currently put CNI code in

Re: CNI vs JNI [Was: [per@bothner.com: Status of Free Java Environment?]]

1999-12-17 Thread Stuart Ballard
Anthony Green wrote: One of the goals of the Classpath project is to remain VM-neutral. Using JNI supports this goal. Libgcj, on the other hand, was written solely in support of the gcj execution environment. Using CNI is important for performance reasons. That's why I brought up the

Re: CNI vs JNI [Was: [per@bothner.com: Status of Free Java Environment?]]

1999-12-17 Thread Bernd Kreimeier
Stuart Ballard wrote: One of the goals of the Classpath project is to remain VM-neutral. Using JNI supports this goal. Doesn't this settle the issue then? Or, we could implement one in terms of the other, or implement an abstraction layer over the top that allowed C code to use whichever