[kaffe] pure java vs. native implementations
robilad at yahoo.com
Fri Jan 10 13:03:01 PST 2003
--- Stuart Ballard <sballard at netreach.com> wrote:
> Dalibor Topic wrote:
> > Yeah, that sounds good. Something like
> > --with-pure-java=PACKAGE,... as in
> > --with-pure-java=java.math,java.util.zip should be
> > easy. I could add a pure-java directory in
> > libraries/javalib and set java_math_SRCS and
> > java_util_zip_SRCS conditionally. What do you
> think ?
> How about a warning if you're using pure-java things
> with the intrp engine?
> Also, assuming we would probably want to default to
> pure-java for most
> things, would --without-pure-java=java.math be
> possible to only switch
> *off* one package compared to the default?
> Also, "all" should be a valid value (for both with
> and without), if at
> all possible.
> Then I guess make the default be
> --with-pure-java=all for jit mode, and
> --without-pure-java=all for intrp mode.
That sound very nice to me. Could you make a patch for
configure.in which implements that?
> > Yeah, but it would require some kind of generic
> > Service Provider Interface for packages/classes
> > all implementations would be in the same
> > and I doubt that's worth it. I'd also assume that
> > people would use a single implementation all the
> It would also defeat the purpose of having
> higher-performance native
> implementations by wrapping them in a slower java
> wrapper, wouldn't it?
Pretty much, yes. That's one of the reasons why
selecting it at runtime wouldn't be very useable for
the majority, as Tim said ;)
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
More information about the kaffe