RFR: 8151542: URL resources for multi-release jar files have a #runtime fragment appended to them

[Steve Drach]

Keeping with the path precedent, is it acceptable to change “getReifiedName” to “getRealName”?  

>>> 
>>> Diction Note: Reified X means X wasn't real (in some sense) until now. As in non-reified types, which are not real at runtime because the static compiler discarded them.
>>> 
>> 
>> I suggested reified because i thought it fit with the notion of making something abstract more concrete, but perhaps this just confuses matters?
> 
> It's the real name, but since it already exists (because that's how it is stored) it isn't really reified, it's just revealed.
> 
> This API uses the term "real name" for an almost identical phenomenon (target of a sym-link in a file system):
> 
> https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/nio/file/Path.html#toRealPath-java.nio.file.LinkOption...-
> 
> In a versioned jar, the logical names are sometimes mapped to other names under which the elements are actually stored.
> Thus, they behave like sym-links.  (But with a bit of control context thrown in, the active version.)
> 
> On old-fashioned file systems with real version numbers, the Common Lisp function TRUENAME does exactly what you are trying to do here.
> 
> http://www.mathcs.duq.edu/simon/Gcl/gcl_1141.html
> 
> (And in some way, we are sliding down the slope toward re-inventing those file systems, aren't we?)
> 
> The older pre-nio API for File calls it "getCanonicalPath", but I think "true name" is better than
> "canonical name", since "canonical" means "follows the rules", rather than what we need in this case,
> which is "where it really is stored".
> 
> http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/io/File.html#getCanonicalPath--
> 
>> 
>>> In this case it appears you are simply exposing a translated name, not making it real for the first time.
>>> 
>>> If this is true, I think you want to say "true name" or "real name" or "translated name", not "reified name”.
>> 
>> or “versioned name" would work for me.
> 
> I'm just whinging about the term "reified" which doesn't seem to work, logically.
> 
> "Versioned name" would work for me too.  But "true name" has the two good precedents cited above.
> 
> — John