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


From ce7896fbd47d5d2c6afb68af13b3af9ffcf749e3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jeremie Koenig <jk@jk.fr.eu.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 19:26:37 +0200
Subject: user/jkoenig/java: update

---
 user/jkoenig/java.mdwn | 8 ++++++++
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)

(limited to 'user')

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,
-- 
cgit v1.2.3


From 272a3459d4c22258d637115c20d7c938cf489d32 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jeremie Koenig <jk@jk.fr.eu.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 19:51:17 +0200
Subject: user/jkoenig/java/discussion: comment on CNI

---
 user/jkoenig/java/discussion.mdwn | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

(limited to 'user')

diff --git a/user/jkoenig/java/discussion.mdwn b/user/jkoenig/java/discussion.mdwn
index d7c8548d..352f6d62 100644
--- a/user/jkoenig/java/discussion.mdwn
+++ b/user/jkoenig/java/discussion.mdwn
@@ -104,6 +104,11 @@ is not important, but performance is.
 
 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
 
-- 
cgit v1.2.3