Re: Will cni be the sane native interface to c++ in openjdk U gcj?

[ter <et at ihear dot com>]

On Tue, 2007-12-25 at 15:58 +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> ter wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > This is a development question from a user's point of view. Not a
> > compiler writer myself. I am using swig (a great program) right now to
> > write a java binding for an existing c++ library.  c++ is flattened to c
> > on the native side, and then rebuilt back into objects on the java side.
> > I understand cni is a much better approach. The binding from cni into
> > full c++ would be much less complex, especially if the c++ code has good
> > separation between interface and implementation.
> > 
> > I got on this list just to ask this question. It's been bugging me, and
> > I haven't found any discussion of it.
> 
> Something like CNI would be a major addition to the RI, and would likely 
> require a corresponding spec, test suite, and JSR to go in. If someone 
> steps forward to do the JCP rites, it could be nice to have.
> 
> cheers,
> dalibor topic

Thanks everybody for the discussion. I can see that it will take some
doing to shove the complexities I would like to avoid into the compiler.
I'll cast my vote. But I get the impression that there is new demand out
there for something like cni, with the new open prospects.