On Sep 2, 2013, at 9:56, Toivo Henningsson <toivo.hennings...@modelon.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andi Vajda [mailto:va...@apache.org] >> Sent: den 30 augusti 2013 16:11 >> To: Toivo Henningsson >> Cc: pylucene-dev@lucene.apache.org >> Subject: Re: JCC for Java -> C++ and initializeClass >> >> >> On Aug 30, 2013, at 15:55, Toivo Henningsson >> <toivo.hennings...@modelon.com> wrote: >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Andi Vajda [mailto:va...@apache.org] >>>> Sent: den 30 augusti 2013 15:13 >>>> To: pylucene-dev@lucene.apache.org >>>> Subject: Re: JCC for Java -> C++ and initializeClass >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 30 Aug 2013, Toivo Henningsson wrote: >>>> >>>>> I've been using JCC successfully for a number of months for wrapping >>>>> Java >>>> code to use in a C++ program. >>>>> My question is about initializeClass. Right now, I'm calling >>>>> >>>>> mypackage::MyClass::initializeClass(false); >>>>> >>>>> on some of my classes during initialization (in the C++ code), as I >>>>> got the >>>> impression that I am supposed to do. But it doesn't seem to make a >>>> difference if I remove those calls. Is it still required, and if it is, >>>> for what? >>>> >>>> initializeClass() is called for you, lazily, when the C++ wrapper >>>> class constructor is called for the first time. >>>> You can see this in the generated .h files. >>> >>> Ok, great! >>> >>> So it's only if I need to use something inside of a class before creating >>> any >> instances that I need to call initializeClass()? >> >> Thinking about this, from C++, there may be holes. From Python, when import >> on the Python wrapper is called, initializeClass() ends up being called too. > > I looked a bit at the source (generated and otherwise), and my conclusion was > that > * initializeClass() looks up class, method, field ids and static fields ==> > it needs to be called before > * calling methods on the class (also static ones) > * accessing fields in the class > * intializeClass() is called when > * a wrapper instance is created > * a static method is called > I think that this leaves only the case when accessing a static field, which > indeed is a hole. > > My only question now is: Do you plan to keep the other three cases (calling > static/nonstatic methods, access to instance fields) safe when it comes to > initializeClass? > Then I can write my code under that assumption. Yes, this has been quite stable and I don't anticipate any changes there. Andi.. > > / Toivo > > Toivo Henningsson, PhD > Software Engineer > Simulation & Optimization R&D > > Phone direct: +46 46 286 22 11 > Email: toivo.hennings...@modelon.com > > > > Modelon AB > Ideon Science Park > SE-223 70 Lund, Sweden Phone: +46 46 286 2200 > Fax: +46 46 286 2201 > Web: http://www.modelon.com > This email and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the > individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may be confidential and/or > privileged. If you are not one of the named recipients or have received this > email in error, (i) you should not read, disclose, or copy it, (ii) please > notify sender of your receipt by reply email and delete this email and all > attachments, (iii) Modelon does not accept or assume any liability or > responsibility for any use of or reliance on this email. >
