Re: gcj vs classpath merge status

[Brian Jones]

Andrew Haley <address@hidden> writes:

> Nic Ferrier writes:
>  > As far as I can tell the Classpath/libgcj project is creating 3
>  > things:
>  > 
>  > - a standard java source code base implementing the java libs
>  > - native jni libs to implement the native parts of the libs
>  > - native cni libs to implement the native parts of the libs for gcj
>  > 
>  > As such we should try to reduce the source code differences
>  > between the CLasspath java and the GCJ java.
> 
> Sure, but CNI is a much better interface for performance -- and also
> legibility.

Converting from CNI to JNI manually is usually trivial, at least when
dealing primarily with C system functions in either case.  Typically
the JNI is more verbose and ugly due to all of the exception checking
required after almost every JNI call into the VM.  Don't be afraid of
changing something because a native code change is needed on the JNI
side, if you would let us (me) know then there is the chance I can do
this for you.  It's about time we tackled the nasty, dirty task of
merging these native parts and I would hope even the encoding/locale
handling.

Brian
-- 
Brian Jones <address@hidden>