New policy protobuf protocol.

chrome/browser/policy/device_management_policy_provider.h

Index: chrome/browser/policy/device_management_policy_provider.h
diff --git a/chrome/browser/policy/device_management_policy_provider.h b/chrome/browser/policy/device_management_policy_provider.h
index 592df9b9c709795b35cb78596ef0ecd087d2a7d7..09b87aef3f876215363dcd5638d10c05162cac59 100644
--- a/chrome/browser/policy/device_management_policy_provider.h
+++ b/chrome/browser/policy/device_management_policy_provider.h
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ class TokenService;
 
 namespace policy {
 
+class CloudPolicyCache;
 class DeviceManagementBackend;
 class DeviceManagementPolicyCache;
 
@@ -34,7 +35,8 @@ class DeviceManagementPolicyProvider
  public:
   DeviceManagementPolicyProvider(const PolicyDefinitionList* policy_list,
                                  DeviceManagementBackend* backend,
-                                 Profile* profile);
+                                 Profile* profile,
+                                 bool cloud_policy_enabled);

[Mattias Nissler (ping if slow), 2011/02/02 12:27:55]

Is this the way to go? I think we should switch our client to first ask for
policy using the new request and if the server complains, fall back to the old
one.

[Jakob Kummerow, 2011/02/03 14:36:52]

Done.

 
   virtual ~DeviceManagementPolicyProvider();
 
@@ -44,7 +46,9 @@ class DeviceManagementPolicyProvider
 
   // DevicePolicyResponseDelegate implementation:
   virtual void HandlePolicyResponse(
-      const em::DevicePolicyResponse& response);
+      const em::DevicePolicyResponse& response);  // deprecated.
+  virtual void HandleCloudPolicyResponse(
+      const em::CloudPolicyResponse& response);
   virtual void OnError(DeviceManagementBackend::ErrorCode code);
 
   // DeviceTokenFetcher::Observer implementation:
@@ -82,6 +86,7 @@ class DeviceManagementPolicyProvider
   DeviceManagementPolicyProvider(const PolicyDefinitionList* policy_list,
                                  DeviceManagementBackend* backend,
                                  Profile* profile,
+                                 bool cloud_policy_enabled,
                                  int64 policy_refresh_rate_ms,
                                  int policy_refresh_deviation_factor_percent,
                                  int64 policy_refresh_deviation_max_ms,
@@ -95,6 +100,7 @@ class DeviceManagementPolicyProvider
   // the case in InitializeAfterIOThreadExists.
   void Initialize(DeviceManagementBackend* backend,
                   Profile* profile,
+                  bool cloud_policy_enabled,
                   int64 policy_refresh_rate_ms,
                   int policy_refresh_deviation_factor_percent,
                   int64 policy_refresh_deviation_max_ms,
@@ -146,7 +152,9 @@ class DeviceManagementPolicyProvider
 
   scoped_ptr<DeviceManagementBackend> backend_;
   Profile* profile_;  // weak
-  scoped_ptr<DeviceManagementPolicyCache> cache_;
+  scoped_ptr<DeviceManagementPolicyCache> cache_;  // deprecated
+  scoped_ptr<CloudPolicyCache> cache2_;

[gfeher, 2011/02/02 08:42:45]

I suggest calling this cache_ and naming the previous as deprecated_cache_,
dm_cache_ or etc.

[Mattias Nissler (ping if slow), 2011/02/02 12:27:55]

I'm also not too sure about this. Thing is that the unmanaged bit we should be
able to migrate from the old cache file. So can't we just have a single cache
object here, add a new field in the cache protobuf, support caching both types
of policy for a while and eventually remove support for the old thing?

[Jakob Kummerow, 2011/02/03 14:36:52]

Done.

+  bool cloud_policy_enabled_;
   scoped_refptr<DeviceTokenFetcher> token_fetcher_;
   DeviceTokenFetcher::ObserverRegistrar registrar_;
   ObserverList<ConfigurationPolicyProvider::Observer, true> observer_list_;