On 20 May 2010, at 17:41, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote: > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Pepijn Van Eeckhoudt > <pepijn.vaneeckho...@luciad.com> wrote: >> I've only used buildr on JRuby myself so sorry if this comes across as >> ignorant. What kind of issues are you guys getting with RJB? I glanced >> through the code quickly and it seems to basically consist of the necessary >> JNI calls to call into the JVM from ruby. I don't think the JVM gives you >> any alternatives to this, so I would expect any other approach to have the >> same set of limitations as RJB. > > You'll never be able to get the level of integration with Java you can > get with JRuby through any wrapper. You might be able to make a nicer > wrapper (for some definition of "nicer") but actually running on the > JVM is the way to go. I completely agree with you on this, but there seems to be some reluctance to drop MRI support. If you take MRI as a given, do you see any other options than starting a JVM via JNI and making calls into it via JNI. AFAIK, there aren't any other options. Since this seems to be exactly what RJB does, I was wondering what the limitations of this approach were from a buildr perspective. Does buildr currently do more than instantiate Java objects and call methods on them? What's missing in RJB that would make it 'nicer'?
Pepijn
