A couple of weeks ago when I posted the vte pty patch, I had naively
assumed that opening a pty to pass to vte would be trivial to those of
you who Java well. But, having looked through the Java docs, it appears
that it's far beneath the dignity of the language to deal directly with
anything so plebeian as a pty.
Plan B: A couple of months ago, at Andrew's suggestion, I wrote a
VteStream class that extended the standard Java Input- and
OutputStreams. That class was based on vanilla vte; my proposed Plan B
is to re-implement the class using pty-patched vte and incorporating a
forkpty() as a native method (or whatever you call it...) to open the
pty. (Oops, I need to pass an int pointer to do that... I don't think
Java can do that... Oh, well, Plan B-prime...) The actual pty would be
opaque to Java--I'm not sure Java could even make proper use of it
anyway, but I could easily be wrong.
Any objections? Any shouts of "You've /got/ to be kidding!"?
cm