Re: [SVN RFC] Making JavaHL easier to maintain?

--On Friday, September 3, 2004 1:03 PM -0400 David James <staple@gmail.com>
wrote:

> One last question: If we used SWIG as the backend to interface with
> JavaHL, how much simpler would the JavaHL code be? Do you think it's
> worth the time investment to look at that?

My hunch is that without some major work, it'd lose the OO nature of the
JavaHL code (HL == high-level as in OOish). However, you could recoup that by
having it automatically in sync with the C bindings. Daniel Rall and I, at
one point, had the SWIG Java bindings buildable; but no one has really picked
up the ball and done much with the SWIG Java interface since then. (They may
not even build at the moment; we could try to get it building again.)

I think Patrick might be able to give a clearer answer to this. I know he had
reasons why he didn't want to use SWIG in the first place. Daniel and I
focused most of our efforts on the build system in the hopes that someone
would pick it up if it was buildable. -- justin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Sep 3 19:17:17 2004