Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Bryce McKinlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Etienne M. Gagnon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: JNI CNI
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Brian Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 03 Jan 2001 18:37:40 -0500
In-Reply-To: Bryce McKinlay's message of "Thu, 04 Jan 2001 11:51:31 +1300"
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Lines: 16
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Bryce McKinlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Etienne M. Gagnon" wrote:
>
> > From what I
> > remember, it seems possible to rewrite the current implementation of CNI
> > to wrap the JNI native interface, instead of the current VM specific
> > native interface it wraps. I personally think that Classpath should not
> > move to CNI, unless such an implementation is written.
>
> What is proposed is that both CNI and JNI implementations of the native
> parts of certain classes will exist in the classpath tree.
Ditto.
--
Brian Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
Classpath mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
