RE: [java-gnome-hackers] String changes

[Jeffrey M. <Jef...@Br...>]

The changes were to remove warnings and bad casts that were
in the generated C code.  I probably changed about one third
of the classes.  It was much easier to do this than to get the
generator to produce accurate code in each instance.

-Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Howard [mailto:mh...@ti...]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 10:40 AM
To: jav...@li...
Subject: RE: [java-gnome-hackers] String changes


On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 12:17, Jeffrey Morgan wrote:
> My only concern is that this is a very significant change.
> It will not be as simple as just regenerating the generated
> code since I have made changes and optimizations to many
> of the generated classes.  Still, I think this is the right
> thing to do.  Perhaps we should divide this activity up 
> between several people to expedite the process.

Yes, it is a significant change, but one I believe is worth it. In
particular, it allows java-gnome to be used with many free JVM's, which
I believe should be a goal of the project.

Dividing the activity is a good idea, if people are able to. I think,
however, that much of the work can be partially automated - most of the
java calls to strings are done using getBytes() - we could do a big find
& replace (with manual verification for each). Any other changes then
required should show up as compile errors. 

By optimisations, do you mean changes in the BEGINNING OF GENERATED CODE
section? If so, can you remember what you've changed (or could we
regenerate the current code and test for changes?)
The only such changes I've made is adding comments to the constants in
some of the classes converted from enums. Enums won't be changed by this
proposal, so we can ignore those in the update.

We should also decide if there are any other changes which should be
made to the code generator before going ahead. I can only think of two
minor ones:

- add a space in the comment for the start/end of generated code (so it
doesn't confuse javadoc)
- change generated enum integer constants to private (I have done this
on the current code using a simple find/replace)

Are there any changes in Gtk2.2 which might be worth looking at at this
stage? I know it's API compatible with 2.0, but are there any additional
functions?

-- 
  .''`. Mark Howard
 : :' :
 `. `'  http://www.tildemh.com 
   `-   mh...@de... | mh...@ti... | mh...@ca... 



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Tablet PC.  
Does your code think in ink? You could win a Tablet PC. 
Get a free Tablet PC hat just for playing. What are you waiting for? 
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?micr5043en
_______________________________________________
java-gnome-hackers mailing list
jav...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/java-gnome-hackers