From 7db3ef59172cff66ea4700b2a791f36bcfc078d2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thomas Schwinge <tschwinge@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:18:24 +0200
Subject: user/jkoenig/java/discussion: JNI, JNA, CNI.

---
 user/jkoenig/java/discussion.mdwn | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)

(limited to 'user')

diff --git a/user/jkoenig/java/discussion.mdwn b/user/jkoenig/java/discussion.mdwn
index f16d7678..d7c8548d 100644
--- a/user/jkoenig/java/discussion.mdwn
+++ b/user/jkoenig/java/discussion.mdwn
@@ -77,6 +77,34 @@ either new ones or existing ones, as applicable.
             pages ([[!taglink open_issue_documentation]]).
 
 
+# Java Native Interface (JNI)
+
+  * <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Native_Interface>
+  * <http://download.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/jni/>
+  * <http://java.sun.com/products/jdk/faq/jnifaq.html>
+  * <http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jni/>
+
+
+## Java Native Access (JNA)
+
+  * <http://jna.java.net/>
+  * <https://github.com/twall/jna#readme>
+
+This is a different approach, and *while some attention is paid to performance,
+correctness and ease of use take priority*.
+
+As we plan on only having a few native methods (for invoking `mach_msg`,
+essentially), JNA is probably the wrong approach: portability and ease of use
+is not important, but performance is.
+
+## Compiled Native Interface (CNI)
+
+  * <http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcj/About-CNI.html>
+  * <http://per.bothner.com/papers/UsenixJVM01/CNI01.pdf>
+
+Probably faster than JNI, but only usable with GCJ.
+
+
 # IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-07-13
 
 [[!tag open_issue_documentation]]
-- 
cgit v1.2.3