I use JNI to wrap the Qt and KDE C++ apis for java bindings. In C++ you have method overloading, and you need the JNI naming convention to map the overloaded methods onto the java api. The .Net P/Invoke api doesn’t have a standard way to define overloaded methods, and that is a problem.

I think the main problem with JNI is the lack of automated code generators. It is far too much work to wrap a C++ library with more than a handful of classes. The Qt/KDE apis have around 1000 classes, and would be impossible to wrap without automating to code generation.

The gcj compiler has an alternative to JNI called ‘CNI’ which is a much more natural interface to C++ code, and is more efficient.

Overloaded methods and unsigned types would be a great help in interfacing with C++ libraries, and ‘religious’ arguments about not including them in java annoy me a bit. That sort of thing is actually useful for integrating with the ‘real world’.

I use JNI to wrap the Qt and KDE C++ apis for java bindings. In C++ you have method overloading, and you need the JNI naming convention to map the overloaded methods onto the java api. The .Net P/Invoke api doesn’t have a standard way to define overloaded methods, and that is a problem.

I think the main problem with JNI is the lack of automated code generators. It is far too much work to wrap a C++ library with more than a handful of classes. The Qt/KDE apis have around 1000 classes, and would be impossible to wrap without automating to code generation.

The gcj compiler has an alternative to JNI called ‘CNI’ which is a much more natural interface to C++ code, and is more efficient.

Overloaded methods and unsigned types would be a great help in interfacing with C++ libraries, and ‘religious’ arguments about not including them in java annoy me a bit. That sort of thing is actually useful for integrating with the ‘real world’.