summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/user
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'user')
-rw-r--r--user/jkoenig/java.mdwn8
-rw-r--r--user/jkoenig/java/discussion.mdwn33
2 files changed, 41 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/user/jkoenig/java.mdwn b/user/jkoenig/java.mdwn
index 700f9c4e..9732e2cd 100644
--- a/user/jkoenig/java.mdwn
+++ b/user/jkoenig/java.mdwn
@@ -50,6 +50,14 @@ My latest code is available on
and modified Debian packages
are available in my apt repository.
+2011-07-20:
+The patches were reviewed by Samuel Thibault.
+Samuel pointed out a couple of issues
+and I beleive I have addressed all of them (fixes posted).
+I'm in the process of publishing updated libc and hurd packages;
+provided those work as expected,
+the next step would be to get these changes into Debian.
+
One question is how the new symbols introduced by my patches
should be handled.
Weak symbols turned out to be impractical,
diff --git a/user/jkoenig/java/discussion.mdwn b/user/jkoenig/java/discussion.mdwn
index f16d7678..352f6d62 100644
--- a/user/jkoenig/java/discussion.mdwn
+++ b/user/jkoenig/java/discussion.mdwn
@@ -77,6 +77,39 @@ 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.
+
+> Given that we have very few JNI calls,
+> it might be interesting to take a "dual" approach
+> if CNI actually improves performance
+> when compiling to native code.
+> --[[jkoenig]] 2011-07-20
+
# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-07-13
[[!tag open_issue_documentation]]