Posted by
David Wan on
URL: http://quantlib.414.s1.nabble.com/JAVA-Sub-project-tp3355p3357.html
No matter what, JNI or pure, need a Java version :)
Never used SWIG before, cannot comment how good a job it can do. My
humble opinions about "JNI vs. Pure" are:
1. A JNI based Java program is not as realiable as a pure one: it has
much more chances to crash (JVM abnormal halt) than a pure one.
2. JNI may or may not be faster that a pure one;
3. JNI addes complexity for both development and deployment,
especially deployment. for example, a Java Swing based GUI that uses
"quantlib java version :)", if it is pure java, you can just put it on
your web site and use web start to let people to access it anywhere
using a browser with an internet connection. But for a JNI one, you
have to install the native library on the client's PC. If updating is
available, the client would have to install the library again. For
pure one, no need.
4. Not sure how much time porting using JNI (say SWIG) will save than
re-implementing in pure java
5. If Quantlib can be implemented using Java with same(similar)
interfaces and functionalities of the C++ version, there will be fun.
If someone benchmark the performance after it is done, it may become
the most popular IT article of the year.
David
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:27:37 +0200, Ferdinando Ametrano
<
[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi all
>
> David Wan wrote:
> >[..]
> >I saw there is posting to propose a Java sub-project. Cannot wait
> >seeing it happens and would like to contribute too. I like both C++
> >and Java, but Java deserves a space in quant world too :-)
>
> Please forgive my ignorance, but why is everybody interested in porting
> QuantLib to Java (C#), and nobody is considering just extending to Java
> (C#) the SWIG wrappers already available for Python, Ruby, and Scheme?
>
> Any tech or architectural reason? Just to write "100% Java"?
>
> ciao -- Nando
>
>