PPB/PPP_VideoCapture_Dev proxy

PPB/PPP_VideoCapture_Dev proxy

BUG=None
TEST=VideoCapture sample (in a later CL)


Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=95961

[brettw, 2011-08-08 22:42:17]

LGTM

http://codereview.chromium.org/7601005/diff/5001/ppapi/proxy/ppb_buffer_proxy.cc
File ppapi/proxy/ppb_buffer_proxy.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/7601005/diff/5001/ppapi/proxy/ppb_buffer_proxy...
ppapi/proxy/ppb_buffer_proxy.cc:113: // static
Blank line before this.

http://codereview.chromium.org/7601005/diff/5001/ppapi/proxy/ppb_video_captur...
File ppapi/proxy/ppb_video_capture_proxy.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/7601005/diff/5001/ppapi/proxy/ppb_video_captur...
ppapi/proxy/ppb_video_capture_proxy.cc:49: const struct
PP_VideoCaptureDeviceInfo_Dev* info,
I don't usually write the "struct" in C++ code.

http://codereview.chromium.org/7601005/diff/5001/ppapi/proxy/ppb_video_captur...
ppapi/proxy/ppb_video_capture_proxy.cc:108: INTERFACE_ID_PPP_VIDEO_CAPTURE_DEV,
host_resource, status));
These lines should be indented 2 spaces less.

http://codereview.chromium.org/7601005/diff/5001/ppapi/proxy/ppb_video_captur...
ppapi/proxy/ppb_video_capture_proxy.cc:111: void OnError(PP_Instance instance,
PP_Resource resource, uint32_t error_code) {
It seems like maybe these functions shouldn't take an instance. Do you think we
should change this in the interface? (in a separate patch)

http://codereview.chromium.org/7601005/diff/5001/ppapi/proxy/ppb_video_captur...
ppapi/proxy/ppb_video_capture_proxy.cc:325: PP_Instance instance, HostResource*
result_resource) {
First param should fit on the previous line.

[piman, 2011-08-09 02:31:39]

http://codereview.chromium.org/7601005/diff/5001/ppapi/proxy/ppb_buffer_proxy.cc
File ppapi/proxy/ppb_buffer_proxy.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/7601005/diff/5001/ppapi/proxy/ppb_buffer_proxy...
ppapi/proxy/ppb_buffer_proxy.cc:113: // static
On 2011/08/08 22:42:17, brettw wrote:
> Blank line before this.

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/7601005/diff/5001/ppapi/proxy/ppb_video_captur...
File ppapi/proxy/ppb_video_capture_proxy.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/7601005/diff/5001/ppapi/proxy/ppb_video_captur...
ppapi/proxy/ppb_video_capture_proxy.cc:49: const struct
PP_VideoCaptureDeviceInfo_Dev* info,
On 2011/08/08 22:42:17, brettw wrote:
> I don't usually write the "struct" in C++ code.

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/7601005/diff/5001/ppapi/proxy/ppb_video_captur...
ppapi/proxy/ppb_video_capture_proxy.cc:108: INTERFACE_ID_PPP_VIDEO_CAPTURE_DEV,
host_resource, status));
On 2011/08/08 22:42:17, brettw wrote:
> These lines should be indented 2 spaces less.

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/7601005/diff/5001/ppapi/proxy/ppb_video_captur...
ppapi/proxy/ppb_video_capture_proxy.cc:111: void OnError(PP_Instance instance,
PP_Resource resource, uint32_t error_code) {
On 2011/08/08 22:42:17, brettw wrote:
> It seems like maybe these functions shouldn't take an instance. Do you think
we
> should change this in the interface? (in a separate patch)

As I mentioned in the other CL, 1- we don't yet have the infrastructure to make
it possible, 2- it's trivial and cheap to pass the instance as a parameter, 3-
this is consistent with other interfaces.

I mildly think it's actually better this way, but I'm not attached to it as long
as we fix 1, and we stay consistent (i.e. someone fixes the other interfaces).

http://codereview.chromium.org/7601005/diff/5001/ppapi/proxy/ppb_video_captur...
ppapi/proxy/ppb_video_capture_proxy.cc:325: PP_Instance instance, HostResource*
result_resource) {
On 2011/08/08 22:42:17, brettw wrote:
> First param should fit on the previous line.

Done.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2011-08-09 07:31:51]

Change committed as 95961