Patch: Document and prototype JvAllocBytes() for CNI

Tue May 25 19:45:00 GMT 2004

>>>>> "Bryce" == Bryce McKinlay <mckinlay@redhat.com> writes:

Bryce> +This function can be useful if you need to associate some native data with a
Bryce> +Java object (perhaps stored in a RawData field - @pxref{Mixing with C++,,The
Bryce> +RawData Type}), 
Actually you don't want to store _Jv_AllocBytes results in a RawData
field. It will just be collected instantly as these fields are not
scanned.
I wonder whether we should support _Jv_AllocBytes as a user API at
all. I suppose it is useful for local allocations. But do we really
want to support storing the result of _Jv_AllocBytes in a field with
type Object? I'm concerned that we may want, at some future date, to
be able to assume that field types are actually meaningful.
Tom