Implemented a policy for centralized setting of the --disk-cache-dir flag.

Implemented a policy for centralized setting of the --disk-cache-dir flag.

This has been wanted policy so that we can safely use remote locations for user profiles which is prone to errors especially with web databases open. This should allow more people to use this kind of setup.

BUG=78619
TEST=For the policy wiring existing policy tests for the cache dir effect manually.

Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=86425

[pastarmovj, 2011-05-16 11:31:35]

Hi,
Can you please have a look at this small policy. It is not  1st priority so
please schedule this as it best fits your plans.

[markusheintz, 2011-05-16 15:55:07]

LGTM with one nit.

http://codereview.chromium.org/7013046/diff/1/chrome/app/policy/policy_templa...
File chrome/app/policy/policy_templates.json (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/7013046/diff/1/chrome/app/policy/policy_templa...
chrome/app/policy/policy_templates.json:97: #   For your editing convenience:
highest ID currently used: 87
Why was this decreased? Should it have been increased?

[pastarmovj, 2011-05-16 16:04:47]

Long story short there were three policies that were added before I started this
CL and removed afterwards but I didn't rebase after this change so you see the
diff with the state where they existed. I know that when I rebase I will have to
downgrade this number so I put it already like hat it should be. I will anyhow
have to revise the number because there are other new policies but this is
checked by the presubmit hooks so there is no chance I can introduce bogus
policy number. :)

On 2011/05/16 15:55:07, markusheintz wrote:
> LGTM with one nit.
> 
>
http://codereview.chromium.org/7013046/diff/1/chrome/app/policy/policy_templa...
> File chrome/app/policy/policy_templates.json (right):
> 
>
http://codereview.chromium.org/7013046/diff/1/chrome/app/policy/policy_templa...
> chrome/app/policy/policy_templates.json:97: #   For your editing convenience:
> highest ID currently used: 87
> Why was this decreased? Should it have been increased?

[pastarmovj, 2011-05-19 09:27:08]

PTAL. 
Only ifdefed the code in profile_impl.cc and fixed the scope of the policy in
the json file. All other diffs to the previous revision are due to rebase to
ToT.

[pastarmovj, 2011-05-24 09:45:25]

ping?

[markusheintz_, 2011-05-24 12:35:05]

still LGTM