mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Samuel Audet <>
Subject Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] MXNet 2.0 JVM Language development (#17783)
Date Thu, 23 Jul 2020 13:06:01 GMT
Hi, instead of JNA, I would be happy to provide bindings for the C API and maintain packages
based on the JavaCPP Presets here:
JavaCPP adds no overhead, unlike JNA, and is often faster than manually written JNI. Plus
JavaCPP provides more tools than JNA to automate the process of parsing header files as well
as packaging native libraries in JAR files. I have been maintaining modules for TensorFlow
based on JavaCPP, and we actually got a boost in performance when compared to the original
JNI code:
I would be able to do the same for MXNet and maintain the result in a repository of your choice.
Let me know if this sounds interesting! BTW, the developers of DJL also seem opened to switch
from JNA to JavaCPP even though it is not a huge priority. Still, standardizing how native
bindings are created and loaded with other libraries for which JavaCPP is pretty much already
the standard (such as OpenCV, TensorFlow, CUDA, FFmpeg, LLVM, Tesseract) could go a long way
in alleviating concerns of stability.

You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, 7-Bit, 0 bytes)
View raw message