Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Erjang
Home
+ new post
About this group
Join this group
Message from discussion Erjang vs Jinterface
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Matthew Evans  
View profile  
 More options Sep 11 2011, 6:40 pm
From: Matthew Evans <pipmaster2...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 15:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Sun, Sep 11 2011 6:40 pm
Subject: Re: Erjang vs Jinterface
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Thanks....I'll give it a go.

If it works, and is a success I'll go to an Erlang conference to
explain it.

On Sep 11, 6:27 pm, Robert Virding <rvird...@gmail.com> wrote:

> From what I know erjang already has most Erlang BIFs so that should
> probably not be a problem. Running distributed Erlang and erjang works
> quite well, even mnesia works.

> On 12 September 2011 00:05, Matthew Evans <pipmaster2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > BIFs ... I won't be needing to use BIFs in Erjang (won't be needing
> > NIFs either).

> > My understanding is that Erjang has limited BIF support.

> > On Sep 11, 5:55 pm, Robert Virding <rvird...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> How do you mean not needing any BIFs? Do you mean the standard Erlang
> >> BIFs, which erjang already has most of them, or do you mean NIFs?

> >> Robert

> >> On 11 September 2011 23:41, Matthew Evans <pipmaster2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> > Oh, and I meant will not be needing any BIFs on the JVM (if we do I
> >> > can offload that to another Erlang VM).

> >> > On Sep 11, 5:19 pm, Matthew Evans <pipmaster2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Hi Group,

> >> >> We are currently developing a project where there is the need to
> >> >> interface Erlang and Java.

> >> >> In this system there is a central Java based application server, and a
> >> >> mesh of distributed Erlang VMs that perform IPC and monitor /
> >> >> interface with external devices.

> >> >> The need has arisen to have the Erlang code and Java code communicate
> >> >> with one another. The obvious "official" method is to use jinterface
> >> >> for this purpose. However, I'm wondering if Erjang could be considered
> >> >> a better alternative. I can see many advantages of using Erjang over
> >> >> jinterface, the ability to spawn Erlang processes on the JVM to
> >> >> perform blocking operations, the ability to allow Erlang developers
> >> >> natively call Java code, and opening the resources of Erlang language
> >> >> (mnesia etc) to the JVM. Certainly jinterface can do that, but Erjang
> >> >> seems like a more natural fit.

> >> >> I guess I'd like to know where one might consider Erjang vs jinterface
> >> >> (there will not likely be the need to use NIFs in the JVM), and what
> >> >> are the advantages of one over the other?

> >> >> Thanks

> >> >> Matt


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google