13 messages in net.java.dev.jna.usersRe: [jna-users] Some questions about ...
FromSent OnAttachments
Albert StrasheimJan 6, 2009 11:33 am 
Timothy WallJan 6, 2009 11:58 am 
Albert StrasheimJan 6, 2009 12:08 pm 
Timothy WallJan 6, 2009 12:12 pm 
Timothy WallJan 6, 2009 12:14 pm 
Albert StrasheimJan 6, 2009 12:21 pm 
Timothy WallJan 6, 2009 12:29 pm 
Albert StrasheimJan 6, 2009 12:37 pm 
Daniel KaufmannJan 6, 2009 4:26 pm 
Albert StrasheimJan 6, 2009 6:38 pm.diff
Albert StrasheimJan 8, 2009 7:30 pm 
Paul LoyJan 9, 2009 1:40 am 
Timothy WallJan 9, 2009 4:45 am 
Actions with this message:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Atom feed for this thread
Paste this URL into your reader:
Subject:Re: [jna-users] Some questions about com.sun.jna.MemoryActions...
From:Albert Strasheim (full@gmail.com)
Date:Jan 8, 2009 7:30:18 pm
List:net.java.dev.jna.users

Hello all,

On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:39 AM, Albert Strasheim <full@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Albert Strasheim <full@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Timothy Wall <twal@dev.java.net> wrote:

Why do you need to manipulate the peer value?

As the comment in Pointer says,

The constructors are intentionally package-private, since it's not generally a good idea to be creating C pointers de novo.

I completely agree with that, but in the special case where someone wants to implement a class like Memory, relaxing this package-private to protected seems reasonable (to me at least).

I also suggest making malloc and free in Memory public, to allow them to be reused from other classes.

Does anybody have any comments about this? I would like to go ahead with my implementation of another class like Memory, but it would be nice if it could be done without us having to maintain a "local" change to JNA in the long term.

Regards,

Albert

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: user@jna.dev.java.net For additional commands, e-mail: user@jna.dev.java.net