Re: [openvrml-develop] Status update: modularization

[Braden M. <br...@en...>]

On Sat, 2006-10-21 at 19:23 -0400, Reed Hedges wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Braden McDaniel wrote:
> > 
> > So, proceeding with the assumption that we need a VM-per-Script node, 
> > the JNI documentation says that you can have no more than one VM per 
> > thread. That means that the openvrml::script subclass in the Java script 
> >   engine needs to spawn its own thread and function more-or-less as an 
> > active object. This is nontrivial code, none of which is in place.
> > 
> > I'm not throwing my hands up in dismay; but getting 
> > Java-in-the-Script-node working is going to take longer than I'd 
> > anticipated. So while I'd hoped to check in JavaScript and Java 
> > scripting engines at the same time, I'm now leaning toward just checking 
> > in the JavaScript one for now. The Java stuff will most likely be going 
> > away for a little while so I can rework it. Given the time that's 
> > elapsed since anyone tried to compile this, I doubt it will be missed.
> > 
> 
> 
> Have you talked to Peter Amstutz about any of this?  He's working on
> nailing down some issues like this in VOS right now.

I've talked a bit with Peter on IRC. And I've talked to some folks who
know more about Java than I do.

I've come around to the conclusion that each vrml.node.Script does not
need its own VM instance after all. Though there's still plenty of work
to be done to get things working, though. I have toyed with the idea of
going ahead and adding the machinery to support a VM-per-Script;
however, I think I'd end up with a code path that would barely be
used--and I don't want that.

-- 
Braden McDaniel                           e-mail: <br...@en...>
<http://endoframe.com>                    Jabber: <br...@ja...>