Being the only person working on something gets old quick. I understand
that all too well. It looks like you did a bunch of work on the interfaces,
but they are not quite up to date with the main calling interfaces. If the
swig library really does a better job with java (as has been stated in
recent posts) that would be the obvious way to go (as long as performance
and functionality are not badly hurt, which seems possible given the goal of
universal portability). You mentioned that the method names out of the box
from swig are ugly. I think we'd wind up in the same catch-up boat by
re-mapping user-friendly names to the swig names whenever the interface
changed (although it would be a completely different order of magnitude work
wise). Maybe something that would map names on top of the swig mapped
names? Yes, that was a joke. Maybe it would work?
-Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Mueller" <alex@littleblue.de>
To: "Kevin Galligan" <galligan@objice.com>
Cc: "Greg Stein" <gstein@lyra.org>; "Joaquin Salvachua"
<jsalvachua@yahoo.es>; <dev@subversion.tigris.org>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 3:39 AM
Subject: Re: Java Version
> 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 17:40:59 2002