Re: cni vs jni

[Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>]

Andrew Cagney writes:
 > Andrew Haley wrote:
 > > Andrew Cagney writes:
 > >  > [This was today's technical topic]
 > >
 > >  > Possible options
 > >  > 
 > >  > - simplistically translate the bindings into JNI
 > >  > 
 > >  > - push more core code into C++ and move the bindings to a higher layer
 > >  > 
 > >  > - status quo
 > >
 > > Or port CNI to Sun's Java.  It's far from impossible, and as far as I
 > > an see the only real obstacle is getting buy-in from the GNU C++
 > > maintainers.
 > >
 > How does BC (binary compatible abi) fit into all this?
 > (I know frysk's build system needs to be changed, but there are 
 > compatibility issues?)

Interesting question.  

To be absolutely clear: you can use CNI with BC-compiled code right
now, given the right compiler options, but you end up with CNI code
that has to be recompiled if your Java code changes.  We could change
CNI so that CNI code didn't have to be recompiled when the Java code
changes, and this would be a Good Thing, but it would be a bit of
effort.

Andrew.

-- 
Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, UK
Registered in England and Wales No. 3798903