Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>>>> "Aaron" == Aaron M Renn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Aaron> For #1, I have no idea what has been decided regarding native code. > Aaron> Last I checked, we still had a JNI/CNI deadlock going on. > > I'm resigned to the fact that we'll need dual implementations of > certain native code. The Gtk AWT peers I imported into libgcj as-is, > using JNI, but that is a special case. > > This does hamper merging since it is a lot of effort to rewrite the > JNI code. I've never had time, or really much motivation. > I think there's also some question of which approach is preferable.
I have noticed that for a good deal of CNI code it is quite straight forward to turn it into C or C++ based JNI instead. There was a Perl script that someone purported to do some of this a while ago. I'm tempted to play with it a bit. -- Brian Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
