Kevin Galligan wrote:
>I would tend to agree. I want to build a client in java, but I couldn't
>care less what was working under the hood. In fact, I doubt it would be
>used much. Yeah, I know, java rules, but hear me out. I doubt many people
>would install a java server version. If you ran an IT department and had to
>choose which one was developed better, which one would you pick? Not
>because java is good or bad; just the level of development and debugging
>effort.
>
This may be one of the point why .NET (or Mono) might be successful BIG
time. It doesnt force you to
rewrite everything (yeah, you do have the JNI, but it still is a pain in
the butt).
>I could see possibly a full java client that would talk to the server, but
>it might be a good idea to wait until the full platform has stabilized
>somewhat. Otherwise the java version would be playing catch-up as the main
>version changed.
>
During my manual coding of the JNI glue code I endured this a couple of
times. Subversion is still
in a pretty early stage of development. Dont get me wrong. Not in terms
of funcionality but in terms of
calling interface stability.
>I do think it would be a good idea to have a set of current working java
>client wrappers and builds for different platforms. I've been playing
>around with svn for a while and I still haven't set up even a basic java
>client, mainly because I haven't taken the time to learn swig yet. With
>something ready to go I think more folks would get involved.
>
Yea. This was the reason why I did the manual glue/wrapper coding. But I
didnt feel comfortable with it.
Maybe I will find the time to learn swig during the next months so I
will be able to contribute to such a
set of wrappers/libraries.
Alex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Apr 12 09:38:06 2002