Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 09:46:04AM +0100, Hans Marggraff wrote:
>
>>I have looked at the java bindings too and tried to get them working.
>>I posted the original question, and since have played with swig.
>>
>>The design of svn makes use of swig very hard. Svn exposes a mass of interfaces
>>that reach right through to its underlying libraries (neon etc)
>>Swig will try to generate wrappers for these too which leads to an unmanageable
>>mass of interfaces, most of which are superfluous.
>
>
> What did you do? Run SWIG yourself right over our .h files? Eesh... No
> wonder it isn't coming out very well.
>
> Take a look at subversion/bindings/swig/. The top-level Makefile even has
> some stuff already for generating the Java bindings.
I tried that, baut at the time (8 months ago) Swig core dumped when I tried to
generate java output using the subversion swig bindings. At that point I gave up.
Pleased to hear, that the situation has improved.
>
>
>>This can be turned off by defining mappings for swig, however these mappings did not
>>appear much simpler than to to a concise JNI wrapper.
>>
>>To be able to generate or to maintain the java interface *automatically* via swig
>>is an illusion in my opinion.
>
>
> We've been doing exactly this for the Python wrappers, and I believe it is
> also working (to a point) for the Java stuff that Daniel Rall has been
> working on.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
If the swig/java and the swig/python stuff can share a significant part of the wrappers,
then swig will make a lot more sense for java too.
Regards
Hans
--
Hans Marggraff
Qint Software
Allingerstr. 18a
82178 Pucheim
Germany
Tel 089 80067094
mailto:hmf@qint.de
http://www.qint.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Dec 19 14:37:00 2002