I'm not sure what the precise naming semantics are, maybe it would make sense to have interface that must be implemented by a VM into VM* classes, and classes that can be implemented natively in a different fashion in their own Platform* or Native* namespace. I'd prefer Native* since it 'sounds right' when the distinction is made about native methods.
Dalibor, you understood exactly what I meant: there is a difference between a native interface and a VM interface. VM* classes should be reserved for such things that only a VM can implement (e.g. low-level primitive reflection functionality).
To classpath maintainers: If you want to separate all native calls to Native* classes, I don't care, but please do not mix the VM* interface and the Native* interface. They are semantically quite different things. I am suprized that this is not plain obvious to some of you.
Etienne
-- Etienne M. Gagnon, Ph.D. http://www.info.uqam.ca/~egagnon/ SableVM: http://www.sablevm.org/ SableCC: http://www.sablecc.org/
_______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
