On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Mark Phippard wrote:
> "Dan Pozmanter" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote on 07/31/2006 09:38:16 PM:
> > Hmmm, I suppose I thought that developers would just as easily flock to
> > as they would to python or ruby or c, and there already exists some way
> to do
> > this. Is javahl the only approach within the svn project itself?
> JavaHL is the only Java API. I do not think SWIG is out of the question
> but no one has taken up the cause to do the work and support the effort.
Long ago, I started some SWIG bindings. JavaHL lapped them, and no
one else was actively working on them, so we finally dumped the SWIG
bindings in favor of maintaining only JavaHL.
While both strategies involve some code generation, to provide a
Java-friendly API they also both involve hand-coding a the interface
exposed to the JVM. So, the main "win" from SWIG is that the
Java-friendly API could be coded with C-like Java APIs, instead of in
straight C -- or C++, as JavaHL is today -- and JNI.
Received on Tue Aug 1 19:19:48 2006
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored