Currently, JFR and DCmd use "Hidden Classes" when displaying class loader statistics and JFR uses "Hidden Classes" when class loaders are part of an event. This is potentially misleading, and should be improved, because the displayed class loader information is only for hidden classes that are not strong.

Suggested alternatives are to prefix "Hidden" with "non-strong", "regular", "normal", or "weak".

Various opinions:

"regular" or "normal" is a good one. I didn't suggest that because we use "normal class" to refer to non-hidden class. For this specific discussion about JFR user-visible description, "regular/normal hidden classes" is probably better.

“Weak” as a term induces the, historically intuitive, idea of not-strong. “Regular” and “Normal” are too general for this concept, especially as Hidden Classes are introduced to be an alternative to (historically) “Regular” and “Normal” classes.

People will go back to the Hidden Classes JEP to try and discern what a "weak hidden" class is. It doesn't make sense to me reject use of "weak hidden" in the core functionality (ie the JEP) and yet allow "informal" use of "weak hidden" elsewhere - it will just raise more questions than it answers IMO.