Remove includes of message headers in headers.

Remove includes of message headers in headers.

Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=74257

[Tom Sepez, 2011-02-08 21:21:20]

Couple of little things otherwise LGTM.

http://codereview.chromium.org/6458004/diff/3009/chrome/browser/debugger/devt...
File chrome/browser/debugger/devtools_manager.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/6458004/diff/3009/chrome/browser/debugger/devt...
chrome/browser/debugger/devtools_manager.h:30: typedef std::map<std::string,
std::string> DevToolsRuntimeProperties;
Too bad we can't get this from a header; if the implementation of this changes
down the road, this will break.

http://codereview.chromium.org/6458004/diff/3009/chrome/renderer/safe_browsin...
File chrome/renderer/safe_browsing/phishing_dom_feature_extractor.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/6458004/diff/3009/chrome/renderer/safe_browsin...
chrome/renderer/safe_browsing/phishing_dom_feature_extractor.cc:150: //
RenderView might be closing.
Did we loose a comment here during a sync?

[jam, 2011-02-08 21:38:39]

http://codereview.chromium.org/6458004/diff/3009/chrome/browser/debugger/devt...
File chrome/browser/debugger/devtools_manager.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/6458004/diff/3009/chrome/browser/debugger/devt...
chrome/browser/debugger/devtools_manager.h:30: typedef std::map<std::string,
std::string> DevToolsRuntimeProperties;
On 2011/02/08 21:21:21, Tom Sepez wrote:
> Too bad we can't get this from a header; if the implementation of this changes
> down the road, this will break.

I agree, this is why it's nice to avoid typedefs in the message headers.  I
didn't see any headers for automation related structs, so that's why I copied
the typedef

http://codereview.chromium.org/6458004/diff/3009/chrome/renderer/safe_browsin...
File chrome/renderer/safe_browsing/phishing_dom_feature_extractor.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/6458004/diff/3009/chrome/renderer/safe_browsin...
chrome/renderer/safe_browsing/phishing_dom_feature_extractor.cc:150: //
RenderView might be closing.
On 2011/02/08 21:21:21, Tom Sepez wrote:
> Did we loose a comment here during a sync?

this was actually from an earlier change, but I forgot to check it in.  so I'm
doing it now with the extra include

[Tom Sepez, 2011-02-08 22:53:00]

The include in chrome_frame_plugin.h is ok?

[jam, 2011-02-08 23:01:34]

On 2011/02/08 22:53:00, Tom Sepez wrote:
> The include in chrome_frame_plugin.h is ok?

that's the only one I couldn't remove, because of the templates.  it can be
moved to a separate header if it turns out to be a problem in the future (which
should hopefully not affect you).

[jam, 2011-02-08 23:45:07]

On 2011/02/08 23:01:34, John Abd-El-Malek wrote:
> On 2011/02/08 22:53:00, Tom Sepez wrote:
> > The include in chrome_frame_plugin.h is ok?
> 
> that's the only one I couldn't remove, because of the templates.  it can be
> moved to a separate header if it turns out to be a problem in the future
(which
> should hopefully not affect you).

it turns out that other implementation files would have included the automation
message header with this, so I moved that code to a separate file.