Move user cloud policy to BrowserProcess.

chrome/browser/browser_process_impl.h

Index: chrome/browser/browser_process_impl.h
diff --git a/chrome/browser/browser_process_impl.h b/chrome/browser/browser_process_impl.h
index 577d4ba71b53b914a1a262eae239179dd4daf77b..717cefbc5eb73144a7d449868eaa494553c27b3c 100644
--- a/chrome/browser/browser_process_impl.h
+++ b/chrome/browser/browser_process_impl.h
@@ -36,6 +36,13 @@ class NotificationService;
 class PluginDataRemover;
 class TabCloseableStateWatcher;
 
+namespace policy{
+class BrowserPolicyConnector;
+class ProfilePolicyConnector;
+class ConfigurationPolicyProvider;
+class CombiningCloudPolicyProvider;
+};
+
 // Real implementation of BrowserProcess that creates and returns the services.
 class BrowserProcessImpl : public BrowserProcess,
                            public base::NonThreadSafe,
@@ -75,6 +82,10 @@ class BrowserProcessImpl : public BrowserProcess,
   virtual ExtensionEventRouterForwarder* extension_event_router_forwarder();
   virtual NotificationUIManager* notification_ui_manager();
   virtual policy::BrowserPolicyConnector* browser_policy_connector();
+  virtual policy::ProfilePolicyConnector* user_policy_connector();
+  virtual policy::ConfigurationPolicyProvider* managed_cloud_policy_provider();
+  virtual policy::ConfigurationPolicyProvider*
+      recommended_cloud_policy_provider();
   virtual IconManager* icon_manager();
   virtual ThumbnailGenerator* GetThumbnailGenerator();
   virtual AutomationProviderList* InitAutomationProviderList();
@@ -222,6 +233,17 @@ class BrowserProcessImpl : public BrowserProcess,
   bool created_browser_policy_connector_;
   scoped_ptr<policy::BrowserPolicyConnector> browser_policy_connector_;
 
+  bool created_user_policy_connector_;
+  scoped_ptr<policy::ProfilePolicyConnector> user_policy_connector_;
+
+  bool created_managed_cloud_policy_provider_;
+  scoped_ptr<policy::CombiningCloudPolicyProvider>

[Mattias Nissler (ping if slow), 2011/05/26 10:20:20]

Any reason why we need the specific CombiningCloudPolicyProvider type here?
ConfigurationPolicyProvider should be good enough, no?

[sfeuz, 2011/05/31 07:32:31]

The way this is accessed from the outside is through the getter
managed_cloud_policy_provider() which returns it as a 
ConfigurationPolicyProvider.
I dont see a reason to also store it as a ConfigurationPolicyProvider.
Am I missing an obvious drawback of this method?

[Mattias Nissler (ping if slow), 2011/05/31 14:14:19]

Technically, there is not difference. My point is just that on this level we
shouldn't really need to know what exact CloudPolicyProvider implementation we
have, in particular if this all lives in BrowserProcessImpl (but that's the
other discussion point).

+      managed_cloud_policy_provider_;
+
+  bool created_recommended_cloud_policy_provider_;
+  scoped_ptr<policy::CombiningCloudPolicyProvider>
+      recommended_cloud_policy_provider_;
+
   scoped_refptr<printing::PrintPreviewTabController>
       print_preview_tab_controller_;