Any JNI/UNO bridge experts around? Some assumptions about field ids are apparently not valid for Dalvik

[Stephan Bergmann]

On 03/23/2012 04:59 PM, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> Hmm. OK, I think I get it, Java's RuntimeException (and the subclasses
> of that) has significantly different semantics than that of its
> Exception (and subclasses), unchecked vs. checked. The intent is that
> the UNO exceptions be similarly divided when viewed on the Java side.
> Presumably that can not be changed.

Yep.

So the confusion of using the same jfieldID across different classes 
only hurts for css.uno.Exception vs. css.uno.RuntimeException (which are 
not related by inheritance) and not elsewhere (where we potentially also 
reuse field or method IDs across classes related by inheritance -- did 
not look into the code whether that is actually the case)?  In which 
case a fix in the JNI UNO bridge should not be too difficult (again, 
without actually looking at the code yet).

Stephan