On Dec 21, Mark Benvenuto wrote:
> Paul Fisher wrote:
> > Help merging our projects together will be greatly appreciated. We
> > need to address overlapping classes and make sure that only the best
> > portions of our class libraries exist in the merged distribution.
> >
>
> We will need to go through the differences. Probably, go package by
> package and hand off the tasks to maintainers and volunteers. The classes
> will have to be evaluated on many levels such as cleaness, effciency, and
> speed. Also, the differences in native implementation language and CNI vs
> JNI may make a difference. They generally have a lot less in terms of
> clases then we do but can fill in some holes for us.
>
> libgcj has java.util.zip [...]
I would volunteer to port that package. There are only two native
files, so porting it to JNI should be simple.
For CNI vs. JNI: One could invent an intermediate language, that could
be translated to CNI code or JNI code via a perl script. Using the
preprocessor alone (as Stuart suggested) seem impossible (CNI uses C++
namespaces and classes like java::util::zip::Deflater::deflate, while
JNI uses plain C identifier Java_java_util_zip_Deflater_deflate).
Porting this package is probably a nice test for this technique. What
do you think about it? If you don't want to rely on perl for
compiling it would be simple to include the transformed classes in the
distribution.
Jochen
