On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 16:47 +0200, Robert Schuster wrote: > I make this to a general discussion. > > >> Agreed, and I think we should replace existing NSA code with the > >> simpler long field approach. Ideally we could remove the NSA > >> implementation altogether. I'd also like to see > >> Pointer/Pointer32/Pointer64 gone but they seem to be used in places > >> other than the peers. > Does that mean we simply store any native pointer as long in some field of a class? Or you can use the Pointer class, either is still better than using the NSA stuff, IMHO. > If so, do we use JNI to set/get the fields or do we go the simpler way provide > necessary pointers via argument list? I'd use JNI, but passing it as a parameter might not be such a bad idea, it's probably faster and fewer lines of code. > > I should have said: Robert: go ahead and commit your NSA-using patch > > when it's ready -- I don't want to delay it. After it's committed we > > can look at replacing all NSA code in one big patch. > Ok. Yeah, I can agree to that. /Sven
