On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 09:10:26 GMT, Anton Artemov <d...@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.
Changes requested by sspitsyn (Reviewer).
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.
-------------
PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26014#pullrequestreview-2967650296
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26014#discussion_r2172691167
