The java docs state that any new JVM implementation should start with good ideea of how JNI will work. I think it's a good advice that the Parrot developers should take.
Well, we have looked at the JNI a little, for the Java compatibility library that's being idly pondered, but...
I think you're badly misunderstanding the advice in the docs. The JNI standard exists now and, since supporting it is required of a JVM these days, you really have to understand it, since building a JVM that can't do JNI well is somewhat counterproductive.
Parrot, on the other hand, is starting from scratch--we're in the same position the JVM was before the JNI was created, only with the advantage of seeing what the JNI became so we can avoid the nasty bits. (As well as the nasty things Perl 5, Python, and Ruby have done) Exposing an interface is something that I'm thinking about, and it does drive some internal design. (It's a big driving reason for why we walk the system stack as part of the GC, nasty though that is)
BTW, why is perl6-porters not gatewayed to nntp.perl.org any more? The last messages date February 2001.
Perl6-porters is dead. All the action is on perl6-internals.