This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: Java-Gnome: jni or cni
- From: Anthony Green <green at redhat dot com>
- To: java-gnome-developer at lists dot sourceforge dot net
- Cc: java at gcc dot gnu dot org, debian-java at lists dot debian dot org, kaffe at kaffe dot org, sablevm-developer at lists dot sourceforge dot net
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:46:21 -0800
- Subject: Re: Java-Gnome: jni or cni
- Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
- References: <20040311174441.GA26451@pathfinderii.chu.cam.ac.uk>
On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 09:44, Mark Howard wrote:
> The big question is: should we switch to CNI?
As much as I like CNI, and want to promote gcj usage, and to the extent
that supporting both CNI and JNI is not an option, then I believe that
java-gnome should stick with JNI.
I don't believe there are immediate technical reasons for preferring JNI
over CNI, however, I feel that the case for making java-gnome available
to the largest possible community of developers is very compelling.
History backs this up. Look at Gnome-GCJ (CNI bindings) -vs- java-gnome
(JNI bindings). While the Gnome-GCJ technology was really cool, I think
the limited audience for this package was instrumental in it's lagging
For developers who are just learning about CNI and are excited about
programming with it, you will still be able to write application code
with CNI. CNI and JNI _do_ mix.
Anthony Green <email@example.com>
Red Hat, Inc.