Always prepend underscores to field names

[yotamN]

Because of the way Frida resolve name conflicts, it can be hard to determine the name of a field in Frida. To prevent this, this patch make the naming of fields consistent (as long as there isn't another conflict).

Resolve #240

[oleavr]

I'm a bit on the fence on this one, since there may also be a clashing method name prefixed with an underscore. My gut feeling is that we should come up with a better approach on the next major bump. Perhaps fields should be prefixed with a character that's illegal in method names. Would also like to remove the wrapper that has the value property, as it's very confusing. (And the introspection has limited value anyway.)

[yotamN]

My gut feeling is that we should come up with a better approach on the next major bump

Is there such a thing? I think in both cases (Java and JavaScript) methods and properties have the same restrictions of an identifier.

It might be a bit verbose but why not expose it through two different properties? You could do it like so:

cls.fields.abc
cls.methods.abc()

or if you want it to be a bit less verbose:

cls.f.abc
cls.m.abc()

[s1341]

Whatever we do we need to be careful not to break peoples existing scripts and infrastructure too badly.

[yotamN]

Sure, and I think that my proposed solution fits your criteria but it also won't fix it 100%

However, if we are thinking long term about the next major version bump we should widen our options to breaking changes. I can't think of a way to identify fields and methods without putting them in separate properties.

[oleavr]

Hmm. This will still be confusing if a method is named _x, since a field named x won't then also be visible as _x.

[yotamN]

I think I will close this PR until we decide on a solution