>>> "Etienne M. Gagnon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12-Jul-01 7:11:18 PM
>>>
It is my impression that by now, most people on
this list, agree that this issue should be resolved
simply keeping 2 separate native branches,
one for JNI, and one for CNI. Remains to decide
if we want to put some rules on the synchronization
of both trees. Right?
My view is that there should be an "example native" which is actually
the japhar native and is built using JNI. Other natives (eg: GCJ,
Kaffe) should be supplied by the VM vendor (though they maybe
distributed with Classpath)
The process of building the "native" for your platform is by an
autoconf parameter.
I think it should be this way because VMs other than GCJ might want
to implement some of the native stuff in there own way, Kaffe for
example uses it's own native protocol (which is handled by kaffeh) and
some of their native code has to be specific to them.
How much of the Classpath "example native" to use in a VM is down to
the VM vendor.
Nic
_______________________________________________
Classpath mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
