RFR: 8285366: Fix typos in serviceability

[David Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 18:08:05 GMT, Kevin Walls <kevinw at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> But on the other hand we have `javax.script.Invocable`. :-) 
>> 
>> Codespell suggested this change, and I based my decision to keep it based on [Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invocable) not even listing "invokable" as an alternate spelling, and that "invocable" has about 3x the number of Google hits than "invokable". 
>> 
>> But sure, there is perhaps reason to consider "invokable" an acceptable alternative and keep it. I guess it depends on if you consider the word to be based on "invoke" with a suffix, or a latinized form, like "invocation". 
>> 
>> I'll wait a while for others to chime in, otherwise I'll revert the "invokable" changes.
>
> Sure, I just thought there was enough evidence that invokable is not definitely wrong, even if invocable is more correct and popular, so it's not obvious it should be changed.  Don't lose sleep over it. 8-)
> 
> More importantly, on the tests -- I saw the changes in exception messages, searched for the wrong text in the test directories, and didn't find any matches that looked like checks.

Invocable, Invokable and Invokeable are all used in practice. We have a mix of invocable and invokable throughout our codebase, with more of the former than the latter - and in prose "invocable" is probably best.

-------------

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8334