RFR: 8227054: ServiceThread needs to know about all OopStorage objects

[coleen.phillimore at oracle.com]

On 7/30/19 5:11 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> On 31/07/2019 6:59 am, Kim Barrett wrote:
>>> On Jul 29, 2019, at 10:27 PM, David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Kim,
>>>
>>> A meta-comment: "storages" is not a well formed term. Can we have 
>>> something clearer, perhaps OopStorageManager, or something like that?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> David
>>
>> Coleen suggested the name OopStorages, as the plural of OopStorage.
>
> "storage" doesn't really have a plural in common use.

Well this isn't common use.  There are more than one oopStorage things 
in oopStorages.
>
>> (Unpublished versions of the change had a different name that I didn't
>> really like and Coleen actively disliked.)  Coleen and I both have an
>> antipathy toward "Manager" suffixed names, and I don't see how it's
>> any clearer in this case.  "Set" suggests a wider API.
>>
>> Also, drive-by name bikeshedding doesn't carry much weight.
>
> Okay how about its really poor form to have classes and files that 
> differ by only one letter. I looked at this to see what it was about 
> and had to keep double-checking if I was looking at OopStorage or 
> OopStorages. In addition OopStorages conveys no semantic meaning to me.
>

This might be confusing to someone who doesn't normally look at the 
code.  If you come up with a better name than Manager, it might be okay 
to change.  So far, our other name ideas weren't better than just the 
succinct "Storages".   Meaning multiple oopStorage objects (they're not 
objects, that's a bad name because it could be confusing with oops which 
are also called objects).

Coleen

> Thanks,
> David