Indeed. The goal is to find the optimal solution that would be spec compliant, portable and efficient.
and later:
I'm not the one nitpicking about pure ISO C portability (I don't use JNI, so I couldn't care less), ...
and later:
and is of thus ranks lower than my proposal on 2 counts: 1- Efficiency:
For a JNI based implementation, maybe, but I'd argue that anyone using JNI doesn't care about performance anyway.
You contradict yourself. First you say that the optimal is spec compliant, portable, and efficient. Then you say that you couldn't care less about the spec compliant JNI interface, that portability across JVMs/compilers on a single platform is of no interest, and that efficiency of JNI is not an objective of your proposal.
OK. So, it is clear that I am wasting my time, here. I now clearly understand that the main motivation is for Classpath to use less portable approaches when they make CNI faster, as the performance of CNI and the other non-spec compliant interfaces is the main objective.
Fine. I'll devote my time elsewhere.
Etienne
-- Etienne M. Gagnon, Ph.D. http://www.info.uqam.ca/~egagnon/ SableVM: http://www.sablevm.org/ SableCC: http://www.sablecc.org/
_______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
