On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 19:29:18 GMT, Brent Christian <bchri...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I intentionally (re)used the "Cleaner" name to avoid a bunch of renames that >> would increase the size of the change and distract from the meat of it. I >> think the name to use might be affected by how the implementation of the set >> of cleanup objects might get merged between the new java.nio.BufferCleaner >> and >> java.lang.ref.Cleaner. Perhaps the java.lang.ref.Cleaner.Cleanable interface >> should be used throughout? I didn't want to expand this change to include >> those kinds of questions. > > I would be in favor of renaming to avoid ambiguity. There is already > `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` and `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`, and now this > `Cleaner` is really the same thing as `java.lang.ref.Cleaner.Cleanable`. > It could be done as a follow-on change, if need-be. Note that `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner` is no longer used after this change. PR 22165 would have removed it. I'd like to leave some of the cleanup, including long-term choice of naming that internal class, for later. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25289#discussion_r2173907431
