Etienne M. Gagnon wrote:
So, you probably agree that adding an indirection for doing "blocking
calls" and providing VM-specific implementation of those calls is not
a good idea.
Please note that this trick is more useful then just making life easier
for Kissme at the moment (because their JN
Artur Biesiadowski wrote:
So, you probably agree that adding an indirection for doing "blocking
calls" and providing VM-specific implementation of those calls is not
a good idea.
Please note that this trick is more useful then just making life easier
for Kissme at the moment (because their JNI
On Tue, 2002-12-03 at 18:32, Etienne M. Gagnon wrote:
> 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
Stephen Crawley wrote:
How would you feel about incorporating Kissme's Orthogonal Persistence
support into the SableVM?
As long as this code is enclosed within #ifdef's, so that support for it can be
enabled or disabled at compile time, it would be OK with me. Note: Nothing
prevents you to *al
4 matches
Mail list logo
