This is the mail archive of the java-discuss@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the Java project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: CNI namespace

To: ks at micky dot rgv dot hp dot com
Subject: Re: CNI namespace
From: Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>
Date: 03 Apr 2000 14:02:49 -0700
Cc: java-discuss at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
References: <m28zyvm00h.fsf@kelso.bothner.com> <20000403140946.A15684@micky.rgv.hp.com>

ks@micky.rgv.hp.com writes:

> Wouldn't one need to get locks, while for the other getting locks would
> be just pure overhead?

Huh?  I suspect you misunderstood Tom's comment.

I wrote:
> I don't get it.  How does having two kinds of jobject help?

I thought of one possibility:  You have a jni jobject that is some
kind of indirect handle, while for cni jobject (assuming you have
a gc-aware G++) you can use the java::lang"::Object pointer directly.
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/~per/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: CNI namespace
  - From: Tom Tromey

References:
- Re: CNI namespace
  - From: Per Bothner
- Re: CNI namespace
  - From: ks

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]