RFR: 8284016: Normalize handshake closure names

[Daniel D. Daugherty]

On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 19:02:46 GMT, Serguei Spitsyn <sspitsyn at 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