Pin the PPAPI custom cursor value.

Pin the PPAPI custom cursor value. PPAPI is intended to be frozen, so make space now for expanding the number of named cursors.

BUG=73356
TEST=no visible change; PPAPI custom cursors are currently not implemented anyway


Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=75928

[Avi (use Gerrit), 2011-02-24 15:30:23]

Moving the custom value high. If we're going to freeze PPAPI, we need to allow
for expansion (I already have two new cursors I have to merge in...)

[dmichael(do not use this one), 2011-02-24 15:56:51]

Good idea.  But you could just use -1.  1000, while probably sufficient, seems
pretty arbitrary.

[Avi (use Gerrit), 2011-02-24 16:02:51]

On 2011/02/24 15:56:51, dmichael wrote:
> Good idea.  But you could just use -1.  1000, while probably sufficient, seems
> pretty arbitrary.

Would you prefer -1? Doesn't matter much to me; I'm just working on plumbing new
cursors through.

[dmichael(do not use this one), 2011-02-24 16:30:46]

Sorry, just a drive-by code review.  My interpretation is that
PP_CURSORTYPE_CUSTOM is special, and you're trying to leave room for future
kinds of cursor that are more conventional.  Making PP_CURSORTYPE_CUSTOM's
value -1 clearly demarcates that it is special, and frees up all positive
integers for more conventional cursors.  I don't think it's important, just
a suggestion.  Feel free to ignore.

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 9:02 AM, <avi@chromium.org> wrote:

> On 2011/02/24 15:56:51, dmichael wrote:
>
>> Good idea.  But you could just use -1.  1000, while probably sufficient,
>> seems
>> pretty arbitrary.
>>
>
> Would you prefer -1? Doesn't matter much to me; I'm just working on
> plumbing new
> cursors through.
>
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/6576034/
>

[Avi (use Gerrit), 2011-02-24 16:34:47]

NP, good suggestion. Taken.

[neb, 2011-02-24 18:23:42]

On 2011/02/24 16:34:47, Avi wrote:
> NP, good suggestion. Taken.

LGTM

[viettrungluu, 2011-03-02 01:52:00]

On 2011/02/24 18:23:42, neb wrote:
> On 2011/02/24 16:34:47, Avi wrote:
> > NP, good suggestion. Taken.
> 
> LGTM

Interface versions need to be incremented when you change enums they depend on.

[Avi (use Gerrit), 2011-03-02 04:21:32]

Eeek. Will fix.

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 8:52 PM, <viettrungluu@chromium.org> wrote:

> On 2011/02/24 18:23:42, neb wrote:
>
>> On 2011/02/24 16:34:47, Avi wrote:
>> > NP, good suggestion. Taken.
>>
>
>  LGTM
>>
>
> Interface versions need to be incremented when you change enums they depend
> on.
>
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/6576034/
>

[vtl, 2011-03-02 04:37:49]

Never mind, it's correct in general to do it, but it didn't break
Flapper in this case because we don't use custom cursors yet. (I'm
pretty sure no one else is using Pepper custom cursors yet either.)

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 20:21, Avi Drissman <avi@chromium.org> wrote:
> Eeek. Will fix.
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 8:52 PM, <viettrungluu@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 2011/02/24 18:23:42, neb wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2011/02/24 16:34:47, Avi wrote:
>>> > NP, good suggestion. Taken.
>>
>>> LGTM
>>
>> Interface versions need to be incremented when you change enums they
>> depend on.
>>
>> http://codereview.chromium.org/6576034/
>
>