On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 20:45:49 GMT, Yumin Qi <mi...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Hi, Please review >> systemDictionaryShared becomes fatter and fatter so it is time to split it >> into functional files. Moved security and jar operation related code into >> CDSProtectionDomain, and moved shared class info (DumpTime/RunTime) to >> sharedClassInfo.[ch]pp, also moved lambda proxy related to >> lambdaProxyClassInfo.hpp. This way systemDictionaryShared.cpp looks neat and >> light. >> >> Tests: tier1,tier3,tier4 >> >> Thanks >> Yumin > > Yumin Qi has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > Split further sharedClassInfo.hpp to dumpTimeSharedClassInfo.hpp and > runTimeSharedClassInfo.hpp to conform to simple rule of separation of > definition and implementation > _Mailing list message from [David Holmes](mailto:david.hol...@oracle.com) on > [hotspot-runtime-dev](mailto:hotspot-runtime-...@mail.openjdk.java.net):_ > > On 24/06/2021 2:23 am, Yumin Qi wrote: > > > On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 06:08:41 GMT, Yumin Qi <minqi at openjdk.org> wrote: > > > Hi, Please review > > > systemDictionaryShared becomes fatter and fatter so it is time to split > > > it into functional files. Moved security and jar operation related code > > > into CDSProtectionDomain, and moved shared class info (DumpTime/RunTime) > > > to sharedClassInfo.[ch]pp, also moved lambda proxy related to > > > lambdaProxyClassInfo.hpp. This way systemDictionaryShared.cpp looks neat > > > and light. > > > Tests: tier1,tier3,tier4 > > > Thanks > > > Yumin > > > > > > > _Mailing list message from [David Holmes](mailto:david.holmes at > > > oracle.com) on [build-dev](mailto:build-dev at mail.openjdk.java.net):_ > > > Hi Yumin, > > > On 23/06/2021 4:19 pm, Yumin Qi wrote: > > > > Hi, Please review > > > > systemDictionaryShared becomes fatter and fatter so it is time to split > > > > it into functional files. Moved security and jar operation related code > > > > into CDSProtectionDomain, and moved shared class info > > > > (DumpTime/RunTime) to sharedClassInfo.[ch]pp, also moved lambda proxy > > > > related to lambdaProxyClassInfo.hpp. This way > > > > systemDictionaryShared.cpp looks neat and light. > > > > > > > > > I'm not really seeing a consistent or recognisable naming pattern here. > > > We seem to have a mix of: > > > - cds/foo.cpp > > > - cds/fooShared.cpp > > > - cds/sharedFoo.cpp > > > Can we establish a simple naming scheme here? > > > Thanks, > > > David > > > > > > Thanks David. I was thinking of that too. The best practice is for a class > > Foo we have foo.hpp for definition and foo.cpp for implementation. Here > > indeed exists non-consistency that I put DumpTime/RunTtime in a single > > file. Let me double check and update. > > That's not what I was saying. I'm talking about the names of the cpp > file and whether they contain "shared" and whether it is a prefix or > postfix. There doesn't seem to be a consistent naming scheme employed here. That comes from day one. The case class FooShared is like cds/fooShared.[ch]pp Usually it is for a class with counterpart of a non-shared version, like Metaspace, SystemDictionary etc. The classes [DumpTime/RunTime]SharedClassInfo are used for shared only, they don't have non-shared version. The "Shared" embedded just an indication of used in CDS, without it is OK i think. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4568
