On Sat, 2004-03-13 at 20:33, Momchil Velikov wrote:
> Bullshit, sorry.
Thanks for your politeness. I don't think that anything coming after
such a sentence is worth discussing.
Best regards,
Tom
Thomas Aeby, Kirchweg
> "Thomas" == Thomas Aeby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 18:44, Mark Howard wrote:
>> The big question is: should we switch to CNI?
Thomas> Actually you already know the answer. Will you rename the
Thomas> "java-gnome" project to "gcj-gnome"? If not,
On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 18:44, Mark Howard wrote:
> The big question is: should we switch to CNI?
Actually you already know the answer. Will you rename the "java-gnome"
project to "gcj-gnome"? If not, stay with JNI, if yes, do this step
with all consequences - you are talking about a library, then,
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 03:07, Tom Tromey wrote:
[just jumping in]
> The primary thing is freedom.
> Based on what you say, it sounds like we have different priorities
> here.
This is one of the core questions: Is some library that will only work
with one single Java-lookalike-but-GPL'd runtime envi
Per Bothner wrote:
...
then a pre-processor can generate the JNI or CNI headers.
...
My main worry is that the programmers using these macros might not take
the good approach to JNI programming (which consists of "caching" method
and field ID's) if some macro hides method/field accesses.
Also, fro
Momchil Velikov wrote:
How about asking Sun to support CNI then ? Because it's they who
limit your "freedoom of choice", by supporting only one (the
technically inferior, AIUI) interface.
Who says that JNI is technically inferior than CNI technically? As
a JVM specialist, I can say that it is no
6 matches
Mail list logo
