RFC: Moving native code in java.net into architecture dependant files

[Michael Koch]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Am Sonntag, 16. März 2003 04:28 schrieb Mohan Embar:
> Michael,
>
> >Here is a patch which moves the native code of java.net into
> >architecture dependant files for better/easier maintaining, as
> >requested by several people.
>
> To my untrained eyes, this looks nice. I'm especially eager to have
> this in place so we can sort out things like the strerror() stuff
> being broken in Win32. Ranjit, do you agree with me that even if
> the Win32 code isn't perfect, we can sort things out once the split
> has been made?
>
> I have a couple of comments. Please let me know if I've
> misunderstood something or gotten the facts wrong:
>
> - Is it a done deal that all eCos variants will never have any net
> code in them? If not, the naming conventions seem to establish the
> equivalence between the eCos platform and java.net functionality
> being disabled. Is this confusing from a naming standpoint? What if
> instead of natInetAddressEcos.cc (for example), you had
> natInetAddressNoNet.cc and made another variable called
> NET_PLATFORM which factored in not only PLATFORM, but also whether
> enable_java_net was "no"?

As I understood it Ecos is more used as a synomynon for a 
non-supported architecture. At least I think I read that on the lists 
(a comment from Tom I think).

> >Question: Is it useful to point to "ecos" for the native java.net
> > code when DISABLE_JAVA_NET is defined ? This would make the code
> > in the "posix" target a little bit clearer. Any ideas for this ?
>
> - This would clean up the Win32 target too. If you did what I
> previously mentioned, you could safely eliminate the duplicate code
> within the #ifdef DISABLE_JAVA_NET...#endif sections of the Posix
> and Win32 files because
>
>   AC_LINK_FILES(java/net/natInetAddress${NET_PLATFORM}.cc,
> java/lang/natInetAddress.cc)
>
>   would have NET_PLATFORM=NoNet when say PLATFORM=Win32 and
> enable_java_net was "no".
>
> Does this make any sense or have I not understood things correctly?

Makes sense to me too. Let us see what Tom and Andrew think about 
this. They have to decide.

Michael
- -- 
Homepage: http://www.worldforge.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+dKbzWSOgCCdjSDsRAu7iAJkBLOXa1LaAJ34XME8ew1XRtVB0QQCfV5o+
RbEMUdjBNkKhxe9UVLybJlg=
=W10Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----