From dev-return-14654-apmail-apr-dev-archive=apr.apache.org@apr.apache.org Tue Aug 23 05:42:02 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 47865 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2005 05:42:02 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 23 Aug 2005 05:42:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 39561 invoked by uid 500); 23 Aug 2005 05:41:59 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 39517 invoked by uid 500); 23 Aug 2005 05:41:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 39504 invoked by uid 99); 23 Aug 2005 05:41:59 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 22:41:59 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [216.148.227.118] (HELO rwcrmhc12.comcast.net) (216.148.227.118) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 22:42:16 -0700 Received: from uranus (c-24-128-84-57.hsd1.ma.comcast.net[24.128.84.57]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with SMTP id <2005082305415001500mtft1e>; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 05:41:56 +0000 From: "Alex G." To: Subject: RE: Suggestion Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 01:41:54 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 thread-index: AcWnpjLh5ku3hRT+RQemSx8PqJ7SxQABzU3w X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 In-Reply-To: <430A83E6.4010909@xbc.nu> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Message-Id: <20050823054217.8061410FB2B7@asf.osuosl.org> X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Brane, > >The idea to have platform independent API for different platforms is > great. > >But, that makes me think that if APR could provide Java interfaces to = APR, > >that could bring a big benefit to Java Developers who are struggling = with > >creating own implementation of common things like network functions, = etc. > > > So, are you saying that the Java runtime is less portable than APR? I > can't imagine what kind of network functions you have in mind that you > can't implement with the stuff in the J2SE library. >From what I see, yes, Java runtime is less portable in many areas. I am = not that familiar with APR yet though. If Java Runtime is more portable = than another level of abstraction, then SWT would not have such a big = success.=20 With regard to network functions. Full ICMP support lacks for years, not = to mention access to raw sockets. This idea may sound lame, but Java is not self sufficient as it seems. = Sun adds some native calls to their API (e.g. in Sun added = NetworkInterface, in 1.6 Sun added concurrency utilities), but the = process is slow due to JCP bureaucracy.=20 Regards, Alex