RFR (S): 8214791: Rename vm_operations_g1* files to g1VMOperations*

[Daniel D. Daugherty]

Gotta ask... Do we want to do this rename now or after the JDK13 fork?

Dan


On 12/5/18 10:21 AM, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>
> Thanks for asking!
>
> On 12/5/18 10:05 AM, Thomas Schatzl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, 2018-12-05 at 12:41 +0100, Per Liden wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>> [...]
>>>>> Coleen and I talked about this, and neither of us wants yet
>>>>> another naming convention for these files.
>>>>> See her comment in the bug report for her
>>>>> preference.  (vmG1Operations).  I don’t care that much
>>>>> about the specifics, so long as there is consistency (which there
>>>>> admittedly is not, at present, but
>>>>> this proposed change just makes that worse).
>>>>>
>>>> I could rename the other gc files too to make them consistent, e.g.
>>>> cmsVMOperations :)
>>>>
>>>> However I can be convinced to go with vmG1Operations although it
>>>> does read backwards imho. At least it gets rid of the underscore.
>>>>
>>>> New webrev with that latter change:
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tschatzl/8214791/webrev.1
>>> I don't know... I would suggest we have either a prefix or a suffix.
>>> The "midfix" (is that a word?) style is just strange. For example:
>>>
>>>    runtime/vmOperations.hpp
>>>    gc/shared/gcVMOperations.hpp
>>>    gc/g1/g1VMOperations.hpp
>>>    gc/parallel/psVMOperations.hpp
>>>    gc/cms/cmsVMOperations.hpp
>> I would prefer this (this is actually the original suggestion) and will
>> do the work if everyone agrees on that. Widening to hotspot-runtime-dev
>> in the hope that we can catch all that discussion there too then.
>
> I'm okay with this convention too (despite what I wrote in the bug), 
> if they're all changed.  I can guess that name when looking for it.
>>> or maybe (to follow the vmStructs style):
>>>
>>>    runtime/vmOperations.hpp
>>>    gc/shared/vmOperations_gc.hpp
>>>    gc/g1/vmOperations_g1.hpp
>>>    gc/parallel/vmOperations_ps.hpp
>>>    gc/cms/vmOperations_cms.hpp
>
> I don't like underscores.
>>>
>>> But then I also don't think there is any real value in always having
>>> VM_Operation (or other things like OopClosure) classes declared in
>>> separate files, like we currently do. In some cases such classes
>>> have very little in common and are better place in the context they
>>> are used.
>>> For example, in ZGC the VM_ZOperation class is an internal part of
>>> the ZDriver, and not declared in a separate file.
>
> I like the separate files.  Then I can find them all and try to figure 
> out what the vm operation flags mean.
>> I agree, I saw that and think it is nice(r) :) However e.g. the
>> g1CollectedHeap.cpp file is big enough as it is, and the files are
>> there already.
>>
>> It's just that every time I look at these names in the file browser I
>> see these very strangely named files and think to myself that this
>> should be fixed. Now here we are...
>
> Me too!  Thank you for fixing these!
> Coleen
>>
>> Thanks,
>>    Thomas
>>
>>
>