buildr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pepijn Van Eeckhoudt <pepijn.vaneeckho...@luciad.com>
Subject Re: 1.4, Windows 7, and a few news
Date Thu, 20 May 2010 17:23:09 GMT
On 20 May 2010, at 17:41, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Pepijn Van Eeckhoudt
> <pepijn.vaneeckhoudt@luciad.com> wrote:
>> I've only used buildr on JRuby myself so sorry if this comes across as
>> ignorant. What kind of issues are you guys getting with RJB? I glanced
>> through the code quickly and it seems to basically consist of the necessary
>> JNI calls to call into the JVM from ruby. I don't think the JVM gives you
>> any alternatives to this, so I would expect any other approach to have the
>> same set of limitations as RJB.
> 
> You'll never be able to get the level of integration with Java you can
> get with JRuby through any wrapper. You might be able to make a nicer
> wrapper (for some definition of "nicer") but actually running on the
> JVM is the way to go.
I completely agree with you on this, but there seems to be some reluctance to drop MRI support.
If you take MRI as a given, do you see any other options than starting a JVM via JNI and making
calls into it via JNI. AFAIK, there aren't any other options.
Since this seems to be exactly what RJB does, I was wondering what the limitations of this
approach were from a buildr perspective. Does buildr currently do more than instantiate Java
objects and call methods on them? What's missing in RJB that would make it 'nicer'?

Pepijn
Mime
View raw message