jbaker at cs.utah.edu
Mon Feb 7 13:27:34 PST 2000
Derek L Davies <ddavies at world.std.com> writes:
> Patrick Tullmann <tullmann at cs.utah.edu> writes:
> > Its always easier to wrap a flexible interface an present it as a less
> > flexible one, so I suggest going with the 'this' pointer approach. If
> > it turns out that all the JVMDI code in the world is written to the
> > singleton, no-this-pointer approach it should be pretty easy to wrap.
> > Going the other way is much harder, I think.
> I think I agree with Patrick. And I've pretty much written it already
> using the 'this' approach. I need to resolve a few issues in my
> implementation and then I'll give up the code. At this point it's
> only a skeleton interface, no real functionality. I started with the
> non-this approach but then changed to the this approach, so it's fairly
> easy to go either way...
Does this mean you will be wrapping your double pointer interface to
follow the spec?
As an aside, in C++ native methods still take a JNIEnv *, rather than
a JNIEnv as a function argument, and still pass in a double pointer to
JNI calls as argument 0. I don't understand why everyone keeps
calling the JNIEnv** "this".
More information about the kaffe