>>>>> "Etienne" == Etienne M Gagnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Etienne> It is my impression that by now, most people on this list,
Etienne> agree that this issue should be resolved simply keeping 2
Etienne> separate native branches, one for JNI, and one for CNI.
Etienne> Remains to decide if we want to put some rules on the
Etienne> synchronization of both trees. Right?
I agree in the sense that any other solution doesn't seem forthcoming.
We've thought of better solutions in the past. It's just that nobody
has implemented one.
It would be nice to implement one because it would mean the
maintenance burden would go down. We could fix native code bugs in a
single place. Also, it would make it easier to merge more classes.
If someone were to implement some sort of JNI/CNI hybrid scheme, then
I would argue for its adoption, at least if any performance penalty
was on the JNI side and not the CNI side. Of course, I'm biased that
way.
Tom
_______________________________________________
Classpath mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
