Corrects the window name for the criteria checker's launch method. Top-level...

Changes top-level browser process name back to "Chrome_WidgetWin_" from "Chrome_WindowImpl_".

R=cpu
BUG=none
TEST=run gcapi unit test, Chrome should launch and resize properly.


Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=37538

[Evan Martin, 2010-01-29 00:50:34]

Why not make the toplevel window match the old name?

[cpu_(ooo_6.6-7.5), 2010-01-29 00:58:14]

We need to make this symbol

window_impl.cc:

const wchar_t* const WindowImpl::kBaseClassName = L"Chrome_WindowImpl_";

exported and have gcapi.cc use it



On 2010/01/29 00:50:34, Evan Martin wrote:
> Why not make the toplevel window match the old name?

[cpu_(ooo_6.6-7.5), 2010-01-29 00:59:08]

Adding Beng

On 2010/01/29 00:58:14, cpu wrote:
> We need to make this symbol
> 
> window_impl.cc:
> 
> const wchar_t* const WindowImpl::kBaseClassName = L"Chrome_WindowImpl_";
> 
> exported and have gcapi.cc use it
> 
> 
> 
> On 2010/01/29 00:50:34, Evan Martin wrote:
> > Why not make the toplevel window match the old name?

[Evan Martin, 2010-01-29 01:02:09]

Context for anyone who missed it: changing the window class broke some test
suite that silverlight was using.  It doesn't seem unbelievable that it would
break other things, like this code.

[Glenn Wilson, 2010-01-29 01:18:34]

gcapi.dll has to be built as a standalone dll so partners can embed it.  Will
exporting that symbol allow us to build and distribute a gcapi.dll/gcapi.lib
separately?

On 2010/01/29 01:02:09, Evan Martin wrote:
> Context for anyone who missed it: changing the window class broke some test
> suite that silverlight was using.  It doesn't seem unbelievable that it would
> break other things, like this code.

[cpu_(ooo_6.6-7.5), 2010-01-29 01:48:08]

Best to revert to the old name so we don't have to re-distribute gcapi.dll. Put
a big comment saying to not change the name ever.


On 2010/01/29 01:18:34, gwilson wrote:
> gcapi.dll has to be built as a standalone dll so partners can embed it.  Will
> exporting that symbol allow us to build and distribute a gcapi.dll/gcapi.lib
> separately?
> 
> On 2010/01/29 01:02:09, Evan Martin wrote:
> > Context for anyone who missed it: changing the window class broke some test
> > suite that silverlight was using.  It doesn't seem unbelievable that it
would
> > break other things, like this code.

[Glenn Wilson, 2010-01-29 17:49:34]

Reverted to the old class name, plus a comment (forceful enough?)

On 2010/01/29 01:48:08, cpu wrote:
> Best to revert to the old name so we don't have to re-distribute gcapi.dll.
Put
> a big comment saying to not change the name ever.
> 
> 
> On 2010/01/29 01:18:34, gwilson wrote:
> > gcapi.dll has to be built as a standalone dll so partners can embed it. 
Will
> > exporting that symbol allow us to build and distribute a gcapi.dll/gcapi.lib
> > separately?
> > 
> > On 2010/01/29 01:02:09, Evan Martin wrote:
> > > Context for anyone who missed it: changing the window class broke some
test
> > > suite that silverlight was using.  It doesn't seem unbelievable that it
> would
> > > break other things, like this code.

[Evan Martin, 2010-01-29 17:54:10]

LGTM

[Ben Goodger (Google), 2010-01-29 17:54:56]

OK btw

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:49 AM,  <gwilson@chromium.org> wrote:
> Reverted to the old class name, plus a comment (forceful enough?)
>
> On 2010/01/29 01:48:08, cpu wrote:
>>
>> Best to revert to the old name so we don't have to re-distribute
>> gcapi.dll.
>
> Put
>>
>> a big comment saying to not change the name ever.
>
>
>> On 2010/01/29 01:18:34, gwilson wrote:
>> > gcapi.dll has to be built as a standalone dll so partners can embed it.
>
> Will
>>
>> > exporting that symbol allow us to build and distribute a
>> > gcapi.dll/gcapi.lib
>> > separately?
>> >
>> > On 2010/01/29 01:02:09, Evan Martin wrote:
>> > > Context for anyone who missed it: changing the window class broke some
>
> test
>>
>> > > suite that silverlight was using.  It doesn't seem unbelievable that
>> > > it
>> would
>> > > break other things, like this code.
>
>
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/554125
>

[cpu_(ooo_6.6-7.5), 2010-01-29 19:02:03]

lgtm

sorry for the delay.

On 2010/01/29 17:54:56, Ben Goodger wrote:
> OK btw
> 
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:49 AM,  <mailto:gwilson@chromium.org> wrote:
> > Reverted to the old class name, plus a comment (forceful enough?)
> >
> > On 2010/01/29 01:48:08, cpu wrote:
> >>
> >> Best to revert to the old name so we don't have to re-distribute
> >> gcapi.dll.
> >
> > Put
> >>
> >> a big comment saying to not change the name ever.
> >
> >
> >> On 2010/01/29 01:18:34, gwilson wrote:
> >> > gcapi.dll has to be built as a standalone dll so partners can embed it.
> >
> > Will
> >>
> >> > exporting that symbol allow us to build and distribute a
> >> > gcapi.dll/gcapi.lib
> >> > separately?
> >> >
> >> > On 2010/01/29 01:02:09, Evan Martin wrote:
> >> > > Context for anyone who missed it: changing the window class broke some
> >
> > test
> >>
> >> > > suite that silverlight was using. &nbsp;It doesn't seem unbelievable
that
> >> > > it
> >> would
> >> > > break other things, like this code.
> >
> >
> >
> > http://codereview.chromium.org/554125
> >
>

[Glenn Wilson, 2010-01-29 22:45:16]

Thanks for the review!

On 2010/01/29 19:02:03, cpu wrote:
> lgtm
> 
> sorry for the delay.
> 
> On 2010/01/29 17:54:56, Ben Goodger wrote:
> > OK btw
> > 
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:49 AM,  <mailto:gwilson@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > Reverted to the old class name, plus a comment (forceful enough?)
> > >
> > > On 2010/01/29 01:48:08, cpu wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Best to revert to the old name so we don't have to re-distribute
> > >> gcapi.dll.
> > >
> > > Put
> > >>
> > >> a big comment saying to not change the name ever.
> > >
> > >
> > >> On 2010/01/29 01:18:34, gwilson wrote:
> > >> > gcapi.dll has to be built as a standalone dll so partners can embed it.
> > >
> > > Will
> > >>
> > >> > exporting that symbol allow us to build and distribute a
> > >> > gcapi.dll/gcapi.lib
> > >> > separately?
> > >> >
> > >> > On 2010/01/29 01:02:09, Evan Martin wrote:
> > >> > > Context for anyone who missed it: changing the window class broke
some
> > >
> > > test
> > >>
> > >> > > suite that silverlight was using. &nbsp;It doesn't seem unbelievable
> that
> > >> > > it
> > >> would
> > >> > > break other things, like this code.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > http://codereview.chromium.org/554125
> > >
> >