This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: CNI namespace
- To: per at bothner dot com, tromey at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: CNI namespace
- From: ks at micky dot rgv dot hp dot com
- Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 14:09:46 -0700
- Cc: java-discuss at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Wouldn't one need to get locks, while for the other getting locks would
be just pure overhead?
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:56:30PM -0700, email@example.com wrote:
> Tom Tromey <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > In some situations it is useful for a CNI "jobject" and a JNI
> > "jobject" to be different. For instance, this is the case if we have
> > a precise, copying collector that doesn't have the ability to lock
> > down an object.
> I don't get it. How does having two kinds of jobject help?
> --Per Bothner
> email@example.com http://www.bothner.com/~per/