(no subject)

[cbj]

Sender: address@hidden
To: Bryce McKinlay <address@hidden>
Cc: "Etienne M. Gagnon" <address@hidden>,  address@hidden,
          address@hidden
Subject: Re: JNI CNI
References: <address@hidden> <address@hidden> <address@hidden>
From: Brian Jones <address@hidden>
Date: 03 Jan 2001 18:37:40 -0500
In-Reply-To: Bryce McKinlay's message of "Thu, 04 Jan 2001 11:51:31 +1300"
Message-ID: <address@hidden>
Lines: 16
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Bryce McKinlay <address@hidden> writes:

> "Etienne M. Gagnon" wrote:
> 
> > From what I
> > remember, it seems possible to rewrite the current implementation of CNI
> > to wrap the JNI native interface, instead of the current VM specific
> > native interface it wraps.  I personally think that Classpath should not
> > move to CNI, unless such an implementation is written.
> 
> What is proposed is that both CNI and JNI implementations of the native
> parts of certain classes will exist in the classpath tree.

Ditto.
-- 
Brian Jones <address@hidden>