"Aaron M. Renn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > One problem is that it is not just the native methods that are different. > I think it would be relatively easy to write a CNI and a JNI version of > the code as there is not a huge amount of native code to write for > IO and networking. The problem is that the entire implementation strategy > of the classes is different. For example, gcj relies heavily on delegating > to OS file access methods in the FileDescriptor class, which Classpath > doesn't use at all. The challenge would seem to be getting agreement > on what native methods need to be written and what their signatures are.
Between gcj and classpath there is a difference of opinion on whether to drop into native code (CNI) at every opportunity or not and I think it has affected the way some things are handled. However I think when designing for JNI you do not hinder library performance using CNI but the opposite is not true. I'd like to see our I/O implementation handle 64-bit filesystems and all the native libs be 64-bit compatible (i.e. no assuming pointers are ints, file handles are ints, etc.). -- Brian Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
