On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 19:02:46 GMT, Serguei Spitsyn <sspit...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Hi, please consider the following changes:
>>
>> There are many classes inherited from the `HandshakeClosure` class, but they
>> do not follow the same naming convention. In this PR we address this issue,
>> all names are normalized in the following way:
>>
>> `XXXDummyClassNameClosure -> XXXDummyClassNameHandshakeClosure`
>>
>> or
>>
>> `XXXDummyClassNameHandshake -> XXXDummyClassNameHandshakeClosure`
>>
>> or
>>
>> `XXXStrangeClassName -> SomewhatSimilarNameHandshakeClosure`
>>
>> Tested in GHA and tiers 1 - 3.
>
> src/hotspot/share/prims/jvmtiEnvBase.hpp line 511:
>
>> 509: };
>> 510:
>> 511: class SetForceEarlyReturnHandshakeClosure : public
>> JvmtiUnitedHandshakeClosure {
>
> I do not support this unification over JVMTI files. This make
> `HandshakeClosure` class names too long.
> The JVMTI has a consistent local naming convention to have the suffix
> `Closure` at the end instead of `HandshakeClosure`. And it is fine because
> normally there are no other kind of closures in JVMTI code.
Aren't there closures in the JVM/TI tag processing code? I could be remembering
wrong...
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26014#discussion_r2172762775
