Re: Proposal: make gcjh default to JNI mode

[Thomas Fitzsimmons <fitzsim at redhat dot com>]

On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 18:46 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Thomas Fitzsimmons writes:
>  > On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 12:09 -0400, Bryce McKinlay wrote:
>  > > Andrew Haley wrote:
>  > > 
>  > > >Thomas Fitzsimmons writes:
>  > > > > > Currently gcjh defaults to emitting CNI headers.  I propose we change it
>  > > > > > to emit JNI headers by default.  That way gcjh will become command-line
>  > > > > > compatible with javah.  This would allow me to remove the javah wrapper
>  > > > > > script from java-gcj-compat and instead symlink javah directly to gcjh.
>  > > > > 
>  > > > > I should have mentioned; I'm proposing this change for mainline (4.1),
>  > > > > not 4.0.x.
>  > > >
>  > > >I think this is an awful idea.  CNI is our preferred route and offers
>  > > >many advantages.  To change gcjh to emitting JNI headers by default
>  > > >would send out an inapporpriate message.  If you would like gcjh to
>  > > >look at its argv[0] and do something different when invoked as javah I
>  > > >wouldn't object.
>  > > >
>  > > I agree. Despite the fact that "downgrading" CNI is not the direction we 
>  > > want to take, dramatically changing the behavior of an existing tool is 
>  > > a no-no and would contradict/break all the documentation, FAQs, 
>  > > Makefiles etc that are out there.
>  > 
>  > That's why I'm proposing it for 4.1.  I really don't like the idea that
>  > gcjh is command-line incompatible with javah just for the sake of
>  > promoting CNI.  That said, the mistake has already been made; if people
>  > think it's too big a break for a point release then we'll just have to
>  > live with the current situation for now.
> 
> It's too big a break for any release, ever.
> 
>  > > On the other hand, using JNI by default if invoked as "javac"
>  > > seems like a great idea!
>  > 
>  > I'd rather create a separate tool then, maybe called "gcjhjni".  I don't
>  > like the idea that:
>  > 
>  > /usr/bin/javah -> /usr/bin/gcjh
>  > 
>  > and running "javah" gives different behaviour from running "gcjh".  It's
>  > too confusing.
> 
> Fair enough.  It's a time hallowed UNIX tradition to do this sort of
> thing, but I can see it might be confuxing.  I think it's kinda
> elegant myself.  :-)
> 
>  > We can't just call the separate tool "javah" because that will conflict
>  > with proprietary versions of "javah".  For example, we had problems when
>  > fastjar was installed as /usr/bin/jar.  So I propose calling it
>  > "gcjhjni" and installing it in $prefix/bin alongside gcjh.  Then I can
>  > create a direct symlink from javah -> gcjhjni in java-gcj-compat.
> 
> I hate that name.  gnujavah is surely better, but any pronouncable
> name is OK with me.
> 

Since we don't like having "java" in our names, and since Andrew and I
proposed "gjnih" simultaneously on IRC, we'll go with "gjnih" unless
anyone objects.

Tom