RFR 8209387: Follow ups to JDK-8195100 Use a low latency hashtable for SymbolTable

[Gerard Ziemski]

> On Dec 4, 2018, at 6:20 PM, Kim Barrett <kim.barrett at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Dec 4, 2018, at 12:39 PM, Gerard Ziemski <gerard.ziemski at oracle.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Thank you Kim for the review!
>> 
>>> On Dec 4, 2018, at 12:36 AM, Kim Barrett <kim.barrett at oracle.com> wrote:What happened to this entry in the CR:
>>> 
>>> src/hotspot/share/classfile/stringTable.hpp
>>> 87 size_t add_items_count_to_clean(size_t ndead);
>>> 
>>> This name change doesn't seem right.
>> 
>> I changed:
>> 
>> add_items_count_to_clean() -> set_item_clean_count()
>> 
>> as part of the original work for JDK-8195100. Would you like to suggest a different name?
> 
> The name you describe is in SymbolTable.
> 
> Also as part of JDK-8195100, StringTable::add_items_to_clean() was changed to
> StringTable::add_items_count_to_clean().  That is the name change that I objected to at
> the time, and which is referred to by this item in the bug report.  Please revert it back to
> the original name.

I think that we should try to keep the names same in both String and Symbol tables. May I suggest that we either rename:

#1 StringTable: add_items_count_to_clean() -> set_item_clean_count()

#2 StringTable: add_items_count_to_clean() -> add_items_to_clean()     
   SymbolTable:     set_item_clean_count() -> add_items_to_clean()

I personally prefer #1 as we don’t actually add “items” themselves, but only their “count”.


cheers