---- Timothy Wall <twal...@dev.java.net> wrote:
On Jun 27, 2007, at 10:27 PM, Ben Chase wrote:
On Jun 27, 2007, at 8:21 AM, Timothy Wall wrote:
The current state of member/class access is not written in stone,
but mostly as restrictive as possible to communicate to the user
which classes they really need to be looking at. We're trying
to drive the API by actual usage, which unfortunately is limited
right now to Wayne's gstreamer work and my various experiments
with various w32 and X11 APIs.
Uhhhh, I'm actually using JNA, mostly starting within the past
week. Mistake? Hope not. So far it looks good.
I don't mean to imply no one else is using it. I just mean that no
one else has (yet) participated in a discussion of how best to
represent usage XYZ, or provided much feedback after getting
suggestions on how to approach a particular mapping.
Okay...,
I now have lots of code that looks like
public class Image {
Pointer jnaPointer;
public Pointer getPointer() {
return jnaPointer;
}
... // Methods actually relevant to an Image
}
So, maybe JNA should provide this base class:
public class WrappedPointer {
Pointer jnaPointer;
public Pointer getPointer() {
return jnaPointer;
}
}
and then I would have instead written
public class Image extends WrapperPointer {
... // Methods actually relevant to an Image
}
? (I haven't thought too hard about the public/private/protected decls on the
above.)
If JNA provides methods which expect WrapperPointers (in addition to the ones
that expect Pointers, I guess), does that help, or does it just make JNA more
baroque?
15 messages in net.java.dev.jna.usersRe: [jna-users] Override Pointer.fina...
