Re: Classpath building (was re: Classpath future?)

[Nic Ferrier]

>>> Brian Jones <address@hidden> 12-Jul-01 11:05:22 PM >>>

   A number of projects do just put everything on 
   the command line.  I'm unsure what exactly is 
   "fixed" by making this change.

No. I don't see this as an issue either. 

I think Aaron was responding to my suggestion of clearly separating
the build process into 3 steps:

1. build java classes
2. build native header files
3. build native code

When I suggested that it was based on the assumption that some VMs
other than GCJ might want to implement their own native code systems.
I was not aware that KNI was being removed (the message I got from the
kaffe people [about 6 weeks ago] implied that KNI was still the
preferred option for Kaffe specific native code).


   I'd like for discussion about changing the build 
   to focus first on describing a problem (in detail) 
   with the current system.  Then it should naturally 
   follow that we can easily discuss solutions for these
   well-defined problems. 

What I was trying to do with my proposal was address the JNI/CNI/KNI
issue. If that isn't there because KNI code is going to disapear
that's less of a problem.

As yuou said all the CNI specific code will just sit in it's own
separate part of the tree. Having thought about it there probably
isn't much of an issue with that, there aren't *that* many classes
that are CNI specific. Of course, we have to recognise that it's far
from perfect, but since GCJ support JNI as well as CNI where GCJ does
not have a CNI specific class it will still be able to use Classpath.


Nic