Re: lobotomizing libgcj

[Andrew Haley <aph at cambridge dot redhat dot com>]

Jeff Sturm writes:
 > 
 > 
 > On 11 May 2001, Tom Tromey wrote:
 > > I think what we want to avoid is more ad hoc configury.
 > 
 > I agree, except that I'd like to add --{enable,disable}-jni (with enable
 > the default).  This would be easiest to do at configure time.
 > 
 > It wouldn't save much space though, I'd guess.  The general problem of
 > omitting entire packages from the java tree is difficult.

We could build libgcj into a bunch of shared libraries.  

Trouble is, the dependency graph of a java library is so weird!  The
way that every Java object depends on java.lang.Class, which in turn
has a reference to ClassLoader, which in turn references the
networking stack, and so on...

Perhaps, with a bit of care, it would be possible to break these
dependencies in a few specially chosen places.

Andrew.