It's a matter of stability. It looks like RJb crashes randomly, or stops working, or will work for a project but not for others.
I did some hacking of the RJB codebase with the help of the Rubinius people, and I will work with them some more until it works on rubinius. Apparently RJB calls APIs that are not recommended (RBASIC was mentioned, Evan Phoenix told me it was bad practice and should not be called). So there is hope we get somewhere. At this point though, Alex is right. I will roll up my sleeves and work on getting 1.4 out before we discuss more on this matter. On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:23, Pepijn Van Eeckhoudt < pepijn.vaneeckho...@luciad.com> wrote: > 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
