RFR: 8215451: JNI IsSameObject should not keep objects alive

[Per Liden]

Ok, I'll send out a patch for review to make the name change, and we can 
discuss alternative names in that thread if needed.

/Per

On 12/17/2018 04:16 PM, Erik Österlund wrote:
> +1 on DECORATORS_NONE.
> 
> /Erik
> 
> On 2018-12-17 16:05, Per Liden wrote:
>> On 12/17/18 3:58 PM, Per Liden wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> I was going to suggest the explicit 0 decorator values seemed like an
>>>> abstraction violation, and should instead be using the named "empty"
>>>> decorator value. But I see that's called "INTERNAL_EMPTY". That seems
>>>> like a (separate) bug.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I had the exact same thought and I talked to Erik about it. We agreed 
>>> that we should rename INTERNAL_EMPTY to something less "internal". 
>>> How about DECORATORS_NONE?
>>>
>>
>> Filed https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215492
>>
>> It's a 1 minute job to fix, once we agree on a new name for it. Feel 
>> free to make suggestions. DECORATORS_NONE is the best I've come up 
>> with so far, but I'm open to suggestions.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Per
>