Re: (no subject)

[Bryce McKinlay]

address@hidden wrote:

> Further, I would rather that someone merge the implementations between
> gcj and Classpath without regard to not having this or that
> implemented in JNI (just CNI) and someone else can fill in JNI methods
> as they come up.

Even if it means breaking Classpath code that is currently working? Perhaps it
would be better to put the merged version in the gcj tree only for now, and
someone can copy them over to classpath when they feel motivated to write
JNI versions of the native bits?

regards

  [ bryce ]