Move the bookmark manager into resources.pak.

Move the bookmark manager into resources.pak.

This allows for the bookmark manager to work after upgrading
in the background on Linux.

BUG=42770
TEST=Bookmark manager still works

Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=50683

[tony, 2010-06-16 10:55:51]

http://codereview.chromium.org/2814009/diff/6001/7004
File chrome/chrome.gyp (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/2814009/diff/6001/7004#newcode453
chrome/chrome.gyp:453: '<(grit_out_dir)/grit/<(RULE_INPUT_ROOT)_map.h',
If you've had a problem with building twice to pick up
net_internals_resources_map.cc, you probably need to cherry-pick these two lines
into your changelist.  Otherwise, make doesn't know where this .cc file comes
from.

[arv (Not doing code reviews), 2010-06-16 14:07:44]

I'm a bit concerned that we have to create these pak files for a lot of things.
Besides the bookmark manager and the net internals there is:

chrome://resources/ (which live in resources/shared/)
Inspector
Chat manager (for CrOS)
Default apps (like gmail, calendar and docs)

This patch seems to imply that to add a new component extension we would have to
write a new grd file and update extension_protocols.cc?

http://codereview.chromium.org/2814009/diff/6001/7001
File chrome/browser/extensions/extension_protocols.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/2814009/diff/6001/7001#newcode48
chrome/browser/extensions/extension_protocols.cc:48: // All of our HTML files
should be UTF-8.
Can we dcheck that?

[feldstein, 2010-06-16 18:54:18]

Looks ok to me but I have the same concern as arv, especially as we start to
push to make more and more things html-based.

[Elliot Glaysher, 2010-06-16 22:12:02]

LGTM.

[tony, 2010-06-17 14:43:52]

On 2010/06/16 14:07:44, arv wrote:
> This patch seems to imply that to add a new component extension we would have
to
> write a new grd file and update extension_protocols.cc?

Yes, that's right.  If that's too much of a burden, we could have a single grd
file for resources.pak.  Then you would only need to update that one file (which
isn't really any different than updating a gyp file).  That said, I think it's a
lot cleaner to have a separate grd per feature.

[tony, 2010-06-21 08:54:41]

I updated the patch to add a dcheck for utf8 html data.

arv: Do you want me to switch to having a single resources.grd for bundled
extensions and apps?  It's still probably good to keep inspector and
net-internals separate (so searching for the resource is a bit faster since each
grd file generates its own map).  Do we plan on adding lots of separate
extensions/apps or just adding files to an existing set?

On 2010/06/17 14:43:52, tony wrote:
> On 2010/06/16 14:07:44, arv wrote:
> > This patch seems to imply that to add a new component extension we would
have
> to
> > write a new grd file and update extension_protocols.cc?
> 
> Yes, that's right.  If that's too much of a burden, we could have a single grd
> file for resources.pak.  Then you would only need to update that one file
(which
> isn't really any different than updating a gyp file).  That said, I think it's
a
> lot cleaner to have a separate grd per feature.

[arv (Not doing code reviews), 2010-06-21 16:41:29]

LGTM

Don't add the default apps at this point. The 3 default ones are going
away anyway. Lets deal with chrome:/resources, net-internals and the
inspector in a later patches.

erik



On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 01:54,  <tony@chromium.org> wrote:
> I updated the patch to add a dcheck for utf8 html data.
>
> arv: Do you want me to switch to having a single resources.grd for bundled
> extensions and apps?  It's still probably good to keep inspector and
> net-internals separate (so searching for the resource is a bit faster since
> each
> grd file generates its own map).  Do we plan on adding lots of separate
> extensions/apps or just adding files to an existing set?
>
> On 2010/06/17 14:43:52, tony wrote:
>>
>> On 2010/06/16 14:07:44, arv wrote:
>> > This patch seems to imply that to add a new component extension we would
>
> have
>>
>> to
>> > write a new grd file and update extension_protocols.cc?
>
>> Yes, that's right.  If that's too much of a burden, we could have a single
>> grd
>> file for resources.pak.  Then you would only need to update that one file
>
> (which
>>
>> isn't really any different than updating a gyp file).  That said, I think
>> it's
>
> a
>>
>> lot cleaner to have a separate grd per feature.
>
>
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/2814009/show
>