Removing 'using namespace' style violations in src/ipc/

Removing 'using namespace' style violations in src/ipc/

BUG=82078
TEST=None


Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=85340

[KushalP, 2011-05-13 11:24:01]

I've removed all traces of "using namespace" and replaced with the respective
class call.

However, I wasn't sure whether I should also remove all of the IPC::Class calls
within the code as well. Would appreciate some clarification on this, thanks.

[tfarina, 2011-05-13 11:25:31]

Removing myself, as I can't approve ipc changes.

[KushalP, 2011-05-13 12:48:15]

On 2011/05/13 11:25:31, tfarina wrote:
> Removing myself, as I can't approve ipc changes.

Should I just use what `git shortlog -se ipc/` produces instead then? There's no
OWNERS file to follow so I wasn't sure.

[dhollowa, 2011-05-13 17:13:39]

On 2011/05/13 12:48:15, KushalP wrote:
> On 2011/05/13 11:25:31, tfarina wrote:
> > Removing myself, as I can't approve ipc changes.
> 
> Should I just use what `git shortlog -se ipc/` produces instead then? There's
no
> OWNERS file to follow so I wasn't sure.

This should be consistent one way or another.  The choices are:
  (1) add |using IPC::Foo;| decls, then remove inline IPC:: scoping, or
  (2) remove |using IPC::Foo| directives, then add inline IPC:: scoping
everywhere

I generally would prefer (2), but the original author had (1) in mind when they
used |using namespace IPC;|.  So go with (1) I'd say...

[brettw, 2011-05-13 17:20:40]

Since this is in the IPC directory, I would just put the file in the IPC
namespace and delete all the "IPC::" uses.

[dhollowa, 2011-05-13 18:10:04]

On 2011/05/13 17:13:39, dhollowa wrote:
> On 2011/05/13 12:48:15, KushalP wrote:
> > On 2011/05/13 11:25:31, tfarina wrote:
> > > Removing myself, as I can't approve ipc changes.
> > 
> > Should I just use what `git shortlog -se ipc/` produces instead then?
There's
> no
> > OWNERS file to follow so I wasn't sure.
> 
> This should be consistent one way or another.  The choices are:
>   (1) add |using IPC::Foo;| decls, then remove inline IPC:: scoping, or
>   (2) remove |using IPC::Foo| directives, then add inline IPC:: scoping
> everywhere
> 
> I generally would prefer (2), but the original author had (1) in mind when
they
> used |using namespace IPC;|.  So go with (1) I'd say...

  (3) What Brett said.

Prefer (3).

[kinaba, 2011-05-13 18:38:33]

On 2011/05/13 18:10:04, dhollowa wrote:
>   (3) What Brett said.
> 
> Prefer (3).
+1

[KushalP, 2011-05-13 19:07:30]

On 2011/05/13 17:20:40, brettw wrote:
> Since this is in the IPC directory, I would just put the file in the IPC
> namespace and delete all the "IPC::" uses.

I've updated this issue (Patch Set 3), wrapping everything in the IPC namespace
and have removed IPC:: cases.

[brettw, 2011-05-13 19:13:39]

http://codereview.chromium.org/6973055/diff/6002/ipc/ipc_sync_channel_unittes...
File ipc/ipc_sync_channel_unittest.cc (left):

http://codereview.chromium.org/6973055/diff/6002/ipc/ipc_sync_channel_unittes...
ipc/ipc_sync_channel_unittest.cc:30: namespace {
I think we still want to keep the anonymous namespace in this file. There are
general names like "Simple" which will now be exported from this file as
IPC::Simple which we probably don't want. It's perfectly fine to have an
anonymous namespace inside a named one.

[KushalP, 2011-05-13 19:19:17]

Okay, I've put the anonymous namespaces back. Wasn't sure whether that was bad
practice or not.

See Patch Set 4.

http://codereview.chromium.org/6973055/diff/6002/ipc/ipc_sync_channel_unittes...
File ipc/ipc_sync_channel_unittest.cc (left):

http://codereview.chromium.org/6973055/diff/6002/ipc/ipc_sync_channel_unittes...
ipc/ipc_sync_channel_unittest.cc:30: namespace {
On 2011/05/13 19:13:40, brettw wrote:
> I think we still want to keep the anonymous namespace in this file. There are
> general names like "Simple" which will now be exported from this file as
> IPC::Simple which we probably don't want. It's perfectly fine to have an
> anonymous namespace inside a named one.

Done.

[brettw, 2011-05-13 19:20:33]

LGTM

[kinaba, 2011-05-13 19:29:20]

LGTM

[KushalP, 2011-05-13 19:32:18]

On 2011/05/13 19:29:20, kinaba wrote:
> LGTM

Committing!

[dhollowa, 2011-05-13 19:42:21]

LGTM.
On 2011/05/13 19:32:18, KushalP wrote:
> On 2011/05/13 19:29:20, kinaba wrote:
> > LGTM
> 
> Committing!

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2011-05-13 22:42:44]

Change committed as 85340