Re: [Kissme-general] Re: Proposal for changes to Classpath's JNI libraries

[Etienne M. Gagnon]

On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 07:17:53PM +0100, Artur Biesiadowski wrote:
> 
> Maybe an acceptable solution for that would be to create indirection 
> layer on top of all offending function (open,close,read,write,maybe few 
> more) ?

I don't see why we should add overhead to all JVMs because of a single
JVM that does not correctly implements JNI.

The whole idea of using JNI for classpath libraries was to provide
JVM-independent libraries.

If Kissme-specific libraries are required, why not do like the CNI
code and provide separate source files for its libraries (in a
distinct file hierarchy in the Classpath CVS repository)?

I really do not think that modifying Classpath's native interface to
add more VM ties is a good approach.  JNI was designed specifically to
allow for VM independence.  Even Sun's HotSpot VM assumes "pure" JNI
native libraries.  We should not deviate from such an approach only to
accomodate "temporary" design flaws in one specific Free VM.

Etienne

-- 
Etienne M. Gagnon                    http://www.info.uqam.ca/~egagnon/
SableVM:                                       http://www.sablevm.org/
SableCC:                                       http://www.sablecc.org/