Re: Thoughts on 'reference classes'

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi,

On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 01:50, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >>>>> "Aaron" == Aaron M Renn <address@hidden> writes:
> Aaron> o Figure out the JNI/CNI situation and merge the native
> Aaron> backends with gcj.
> 
> I don't think we should let this hold up Classpath 1.0.  libgcj will
> probably continue to have some divergences with Classpath for quite
> some time.  The CNI thing is just part of it.  In other places we have
> divergences for performance reasons (see ResourceBundle) or due to how
> our VM is implemented (see Reference).

I agree with Tom here. I think it is best if GNU Classpath sticks with
providing only a JNI/POSIX/C based native reference implementation. We
just need to define the VMNative/Interface parts well enough for 1.0 to
make a CNI/C#/Java/WhatEver implementation easy. Then if people want a
CNI implementation of those VMInterface classes they can just look at
the libgcj implementation.

I think that ResourceBundle is a good candidate for introducing a
VMResourceBundle class that defines the (callback) methods that a VM
might want to implement for optimization (Classpath would supply a
default java based implementation).

Cheers,

Mark