From 7db3ef59172cff66ea4700b2a791f36bcfc078d2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Schwinge 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/jkoenig') 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) + + * + * + * + * + + +## Java Native Access (JNA) + + * + * + +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) + + * + * + +Probably faster than JNI, but only usable with GCJ. + + # IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-07-13 [[!tag open_issue_documentation]] -- cgit v1.2.3