Remove RDH from UtilityProcessHost.

Remove RDH from UtilityProcessHost.

The utility process should not need to issue resource requests.

BUG=78596
TEST=none


Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=80702

Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=80714

[jam, 2011-04-06 16:28:36]

http://codereview.chromium.org/6805008/diff/6001/chrome/browser/extensions/sa...
File chrome/browser/extensions/sandboxed_extension_unpacker.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/6805008/diff/6001/chrome/browser/extensions/sa...
chrome/browser/extensions/sandboxed_extension_unpacker.cc:43: rdh_(rdh),
client_(client), got_response_(false) {
looks like this isn't needed anymore

http://codereview.chromium.org/6805008/diff/6001/chrome/browser/web_resource/...
File chrome/browser/web_resource/web_resource_service.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/6805008/diff/6001/chrome/browser/web_resource/...
chrome/browser/web_resource/web_resource_service.cc:129:
web_resource_service_->resource_dispatcher_host_ != NULL &&
looks like we don't need resource_dispatcher_host_ anymore.  we can use another
signal that we're running in a unit test

[willchan no longer on Chromium, 2011-04-06 16:37:25]

http://codereview.chromium.org/6805008/diff/6001/chrome/browser/extensions/sa...
File chrome/browser/extensions/sandboxed_extension_unpacker.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/6805008/diff/6001/chrome/browser/extensions/sa...
chrome/browser/extensions/sandboxed_extension_unpacker.cc:43: rdh_(rdh),
client_(client), got_response_(false) {
On 2011/04/06 16:28:36, John Abd-El-Malek wrote:
> looks like this isn't needed anymore

It's actually used to determine if we're in a unit test or not =/

http://codereview.chromium.org/6805008/diff/6001/chrome/browser/web_resource/...
File chrome/browser/web_resource/web_resource_service.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/6805008/diff/6001/chrome/browser/web_resource/...
chrome/browser/web_resource/web_resource_service.cc:129:
web_resource_service_->resource_dispatcher_host_ != NULL &&
On 2011/04/06 16:28:36, John Abd-El-Malek wrote:
> looks like we don't need resource_dispatcher_host_ anymore.  we can use
another
> signal that we're running in a unit test

I was too lazy to do that. I'm happy to do it though, what's a better signal? I
didn't clean up the other place you mentioned due to this same problem, lack of
a signal that we're in a unit test. I have to admit using rdh is a pretty lame
signal :P

[jam, 2011-04-06 16:52:30]

http://codereview.chromium.org/6805008/diff/6001/chrome/browser/web_resource/...
File chrome/browser/web_resource/web_resource_service.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/6805008/diff/6001/chrome/browser/web_resource/...
chrome/browser/web_resource/web_resource_service.cc:129:
web_resource_service_->resource_dispatcher_host_ != NULL &&
On 2011/04/06 16:37:25, willchan wrote:
> On 2011/04/06 16:28:36, John Abd-El-Malek wrote:
> > looks like we don't need resource_dispatcher_host_ anymore.  we can use
> another
> > signal that we're running in a unit test
> 
> I was too lazy to do that. I'm happy to do it though, what's a better signal?
I
> didn't clean up the other place you mentioned due to this same problem, lack
of
> a signal that we're in a unit test. I have to admit using rdh is a pretty lame
> signal :P

hmm, good question :)  I guess we can still check
g_browser_process->resource_dispatcher_host(), or maybe slightly better, check
g_browser_process->io_thread()

[willchan no longer on Chromium, 2011-04-06 16:59:12]

http://codereview.chromium.org/6805008/diff/6001/chrome/browser/web_resource/...
File chrome/browser/web_resource/web_resource_service.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/6805008/diff/6001/chrome/browser/web_resource/...
chrome/browser/web_resource/web_resource_service.cc:129:
web_resource_service_->resource_dispatcher_host_ != NULL &&
On 2011/04/06 16:52:30, John Abd-El-Malek wrote:
> On 2011/04/06 16:37:25, willchan wrote:
> > On 2011/04/06 16:28:36, John Abd-El-Malek wrote:
> > > looks like we don't need resource_dispatcher_host_ anymore.  we can use
> > another
> > > signal that we're running in a unit test
> > 
> > I was too lazy to do that. I'm happy to do it though, what's a better
signal?
> I
> > didn't clean up the other place you mentioned due to this same problem, lack
> of
> > a signal that we're in a unit test. I have to admit using rdh is a pretty
lame
> > signal :P
> 
> hmm, good question :)  I guess we can still check
> g_browser_process->resource_dispatcher_host(), or maybe slightly better, check
> g_browser_process->io_thread()

I ran into an issue earlier where the extension code needed to pass RDH since
g_browser_process is only accessible on the UI thread. It's not clear to me that
this code here is running on the UI thread, although I do see that it posts to
the IO thread, so at least it's not on the IO thread :)

So it's possible I can fix this one, but I don't see a better signal for the
other place you commented on.

Hopefully it doesn't sound too lame, but maybe it's OK if I just leave a TODO
saying we really shouldn't be using this signal, and should find a different
signal instead? Using RDH or io_thread are both sorta lame, but I don't know
what's the best option here.

[jam, 2011-04-06 17:02:54]

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 9:59 AM, <willchan@chromium.org> wrote:

>
>
>
http://codereview.chromium.org/6805008/diff/6001/chrome/browser/web_resource/...
> File chrome/browser/web_resource/web_resource_service.cc (right):
>
>
>
http://codereview.chromium.org/6805008/diff/6001/chrome/browser/web_resource/...
> chrome/browser/web_resource/web_resource_service.cc:129:
> web_resource_service_->resource_dispatcher_host_ != NULL &&
> On 2011/04/06 16:52:30, John Abd-El-Malek wrote:
>
>> On 2011/04/06 16:37:25, willchan wrote:
>> > On 2011/04/06 16:28:36, John Abd-El-Malek wrote:
>> > > looks like we don't need resource_dispatcher_host_ anymore.  we
>>
> can use
>
>> > another
>> > > signal that we're running in a unit test
>> >
>> > I was too lazy to do that. I'm happy to do it though, what's a
>>
> better signal?
>
>> I
>> > didn't clean up the other place you mentioned due to this same
>>
> problem, lack
>
>> of
>> > a signal that we're in a unit test. I have to admit using rdh is a
>>
> pretty lame
>
>> > signal :P
>>
>
>  hmm, good question :)  I guess we can still check
>> g_browser_process->resource_dispatcher_host(), or maybe slightly
>>
> better, check
>
>> g_browser_process->io_thread()
>>
>
> I ran into an issue earlier where the extension code needed to pass RDH
> since g_browser_process is only accessible on the UI thread. It's not
> clear to me that this code here is running on the UI thread, although I
> do see that it posts to the IO thread, so at least it's not on the IO
> thread :)
>
> So it's possible I can fix this one, but I don't see a better signal for
> the other place you commented on.
>
> Hopefully it doesn't sound too lame, but maybe it's OK if I just leave a
> TODO saying we really shouldn't be using this signal, and should find a
> different signal instead? Using RDH or io_thread are both sorta lame,
> but I don't know what's the best option here.


sure sound good.  btw i'm pretty sure this code runs on the UI thread

>
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/6805008/
>

[Matt Perry, 2011-04-06 18:58:49]

LGTM

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2011-04-06 19:03:29]

Presubmit check for 6805008-7003 failed and returned exit status 1.

Running presubmit commit checks ...

** Presubmit ERRORS **
Missing LGTM from an OWNER for:
content/browser/in_process_webkit/indexed_db_key_utility_client.cc

Presubmit checks took 1.9s to calculate.

[willchan no longer on Chromium, 2011-04-06 19:03:59]

John, can I get a LGTM?

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 9:03 PM, <commit-bot@chromium.org> wrote:

> Presubmit check for 6805008-7003 failed and returned exit status 1.
>
> Running presubmit commit checks ...
>
> ** Presubmit ERRORS **
> Missing LGTM from an OWNER for:
>
> content/browser/in_process_webkit/indexed_db_key_utility_client.cc
>
> Presubmit checks took 1.9s to calculate.
>
>
>
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/6805008/
>

[jam, 2011-04-06 19:30:26]

lgtm, oops

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 12:03 PM, William Chan (陈智昌)
<willchan@chromium.org>wrote:

> John, can I get a LGTM?
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 9:03 PM, <commit-bot@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> Presubmit check for 6805008-7003 failed and returned exit status 1.
>>
>> Running presubmit commit checks ...
>>
>> ** Presubmit ERRORS **
>> Missing LGTM from an OWNER for:
>>
>> content/browser/in_process_webkit/indexed_db_key_utility_client.cc
>>
>> Presubmit checks took 1.9s to calculate.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://codereview.chromium.org/6805008/
>>
>
>

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2011-04-06 21:42:41]

Change committed as 80702