I've not looked at the branch lately (only just back from vacation), but I would very much hope that there would be nothing preventing having both the JNI and native-Java libraries in the classpath, and allowing for explicit creation of the desired implementation of Connection / Messenger / whatever (which I'd probably suggest be done via a factory rather explicit construction, but that's just personal taste). I would hope the Service Loader would only affect the implementation created by *default* from a factory
-- Rob On 4 January 2013 22:54, Phil Harvey <p...@philharveyonline.com> wrote: > The in-progress code on the jni branch does not currently allow this, > although is no technical barrier to doing it. We just haven't yet decided > on the nicest api for allowing the application to choose the implementation > it wants. > > The ability to mix implementations within a jvm will certainly be nice when > writing interoperability tests. > > Phil > On Jan 4, 2013 9:16 PM, "Rafael Schloming" <r...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > > Does that mean you won't be able to use both the C and Java > implementation > > simultaneously within a single JVM? > > > > --Rafael > > > > On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Phil Harvey <p...@philharveyonline.com > > >wrote: > > > > > Ditto for Java. From the developer's point of view, they'll simply be > > > using the Java interfaces in proton-api such as Connection [1]. > > > > > > Our current intention is that the choice of whether to use the pure > Java > > > implementations or the proton-c-via-Swig-via-JNI one will be made > using a > > > factory instantiated by a java.util.ServiceLoader. The decision will > > > therefore depend on your runtime classpath. Client code will not have > a > > > build time dependency on the Swig/JNI layer. > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/proton/trunk/proton-j/proton-api/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/proton/engine/Connection.java > > > > > > > > > On 4 January 2013 20:40, Darryl L. Pierce <dpie...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 03:32:44PM -0500, Rafael Schloming wrote: > > > > > Given what little I know of loading JNI stuff, that seems to make > > sense > > > > for > > > > > Java. > > > > > > > > > > FWIW, the python and ruby bindings don't ever actually expose the > > name > > > of > > > > > the C extension library since in both cases we have the so-called > > > > > "buttercream frosting layer" that wraps the raw C extension > module. I > > > > would > > > > > hope we'd have something similar for perl and Java so that these > > names > > > > > shouldn't ever be visible to users. > > > > > > > > Per does. It uses qpid::proton namespace for the Message and > Messenger > > > > classes. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc. > > > > Delivering value year after year. > > > > Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors. > > > > http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
