On 11/15/05, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the end we decided to go with a 'conventional' native code tool set
for the native source, and 'conventional' Java code tools for the Java
source. People just felt more comfortable with that.
Do you think we are missing out on something
Andrey Chernyshev wrote:
On 11/15/05, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the end we decided to go with a 'conventional' native code tool set
for the native source, and 'conventional' Java code tools for the Java
source. People just felt more comfortable with that.
Do you think we are
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 12:17:16PM +, Tim Ellison wrote:
There is a distinction to be drawn between the portability of the
'product' (i.e. the VM, class libaries, tools, etc.) that we are
building, and the portability of the toolsuite that is used to build it.
Hmm.
I'm not convinced of
Tim Ellison wrote:
[snip discussion on make vs ant]
I think the discussion is simply at what point the Ant script does a
platform-specific exec. When using 'make' the script calls-out early
and uses make to manage the native code side dependencies; when using
'cpptask' the script calls-out
Enrico Migliore wrote:
I'm trying to figure out how far is your code from a successful build
with MSVC on Win2000. That is, at the end of this work, I want to have
a clear picture of which source files are 100% OS/architecture independent
and which are OS/architecture dependent.
One of the
No disrespect stefano, but I have a much dumber way to frame this:
automake is just easer for C/C++ code than Ant
make is just faster for C/C++ code than Ant (not by much granted)
ant is just easier/faster/better for Java code than make/automake
Thus I propose the third way:
1. Master ant
Some folks at Intel spent some time over the last week trying to
figure
out whether or not it is going to work with the recent contribution
of
lang/util/io/net/nio packages by IBM, and the general consensus is
that
they, mostly, should be compatible. We have verified that it is
already
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 09:08:28PM +0300, Loenko, Mikhail Y wrote:
Some folks at Intel spent some time over the last week trying to
figure
out whether or not it is going to work with the recent contribution
of
lang/util/io/net/nio packages by IBM, and the general consensus is
that
they,
