Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad.highwinds-media.com!newsfe01.iad.POSTED!8ad76e89!not-for-mail From: Arved Sandstrom User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Hey, Qu0ll! JNA References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 25 Message-ID: X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsgroups-download.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 13:26:50 UTC Organization: Public Usenet Newsgroup Access Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 10:26:50 -0300 Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:4383 On 11-05-21 07:29 AM, Tom Anderson wrote: > On Fri, 20 May 2011, Steve Sobol wrote: > >> Also, since the last major release was in 2007, I was not sure whether >> it's an actively supported project, but I see recent posts on the >> Users mailing list... > > Perhaps it's one of those things that doesn't really need maintenance. > How much development has JNI had since 2007? Have there been any major > innovations in executable formats, calling conventions, dynamic loader > APIs, or other stuff which would need JNA to be changed? > > tom > I know what you're saying, Tom, but I think every software needs at least caretaker maintenance. I use plenty of libraries myself that have been stable for a long time, and any potential changes would really deserve a '2' or '3' fork. But I sure like knowing that there is a One True version owned by at least one human being, gettable from at least one approved spot, so that you know it's the real goods and have provenance. In the sense that you meant, some level of _active maintenance_, I agree: quite a few libraries no longer need even one person to do that. AHS