Re: [Kissme-general] Re: Proposal for changes to Classpath's JNI libraries

[Stephen Crawley]

> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 07:05:46PM +0000, John Leuner wrote:
> > > I don't see why we should add overhead to all JVMs because of a single
> > > JVM that does not correctly implements JNI.
> >=20
> > It's not JNI that is the problem, it is the GC mechanism.
> 
> Which means Kissme has a flawed JNI design ...

You are probably right ...

> I do reiterate my suggestion to the Kissme team to merge their effort
> with SableVM, which already has a robust and functional implementation
> of such wrapers, as well as all the machinery for providing *precise*
> garbage collection (i.e. GC maps, even for conveluted use of JSR/RET
> within bytecode).

How would you feel about incorporating Kissme's Orthogonal Persistence
support into the SableVM?   I can't speak for John, but Orthogonal
Persistence in Java is my primary motivation for working on Kissme.

-- Steve