Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: unknown (asf.osuosl.org: error in processing during lookup of
 archie@dellroad.org)
Message-ID: <44900C72.90007@dellroad.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:17:38 -0500
From: Archie Cobbs <archie@dellroad.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.8 (X11/20060411)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [classlib][NIO|VMI]JNI 1.4 enhancement on ByteBuffer
References: <448EA04B.3060000@gmail.com> <448EBADE.3000001@dellroad.org>
 <448F7CAD.9090009@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <448F7CAD.9090009@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gb18030; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Paulex Yang wrote:
> But after all, the implementation details(class name, fields/methods, 
> etc) are different, so the idea is to provide the three JNI methods' 
> implementation in NIO module, and add them into VMI, so that VM vendor 
> can choose to add them into the JNI function table. I think this will 
> make it easier to integrate Harmony classlib and multi VMs.

This seems like a good approach. The VM can just add the classlib-provided
function pointers to its JNI invoke table and not need to know anything
else. Of course, the classlib implementations will have to be written
as JNI functions (they can't use "direct" access to the objects or
classes) but that's fine.

-Archie

__________________________________________________________________________
Archie Cobbs      *        CTO, Awarix        *      http://www.awarix.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org