Chromium side of IDBIndex.count() and IDBObjectStore.count()

Chromium side of IDBIndex.count() and IDBObjectStore.count()

WebKit side is: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73686

BUG=92044
TEST=

Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=114844

[hans, 2011-12-05 12:06:21]

lgtm

http://codereview.chromium.org/8779003/diff/1/content/browser/in_process_webk...
File content/browser/in_process_webkit/indexed_db_dispatcher_host.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/8779003/diff/1/content/browser/in_process_webk...
content/browser/in_process_webkit/indexed_db_dispatcher_host.h:22: struct
IndexedDBHostMsg_IndexCount_Params;
sort order

http://codereview.chromium.org/8779003/diff/1/content/browser/in_process_webk...
content/browser/in_process_webkit/indexed_db_dispatcher_host.h:25: struct
IndexedDBHostMsg_ObjectStoreCount_Params;
ditto

http://codereview.chromium.org/8779003/diff/1/content/browser/in_process_webk...
content/browser/in_process_webkit/indexed_db_dispatcher_host.h:158:
WebKit::WebExceptionCode* ec);
indentation looks a little off here

[jsbell, 2011-12-09 23:34:42]

darin@, OWNERS review for content/common and content/renderer ?

[darin (slow to review), 2011-12-13 00:50:22]

Unfortunately, it looks like the patch is not fully uploaded or something.  The
tool does not let me see some of the diffs.

http://codereview.chromium.org/8779003/diff/3001/content/common/indexed_db_me...
File content/common/indexed_db_messages.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/8779003/diff/3001/content/common/indexed_db_me...
content/common/indexed_db_messages.h:94: IPC_STRUCT_MEMBER(bool, lower_open)
nit: maybe lower_bound_open would be a better name?  i just noticed that you
write "lower bound open" in the comment, so perhaps the name could just say that
too?  then the comment might even be unnecessary?

http://codereview.chromium.org/8779003/diff/3001/content/common/indexed_db_me...
content/common/indexed_db_messages.h:98: IPC_STRUCT_MEMBER(int32, idb_index_id)
nit: is the "idb_" prefix helpful here?  this struct already has IndexedDB in
its name.

actually, i see that there are a number of other structs here that all use
similar naming rules.  for now, you should just be consistent.  maybe there is a
separate task to re-think some of these names.

[jsbell, 2011-12-13 18:21:12]

On 2011/12/13 00:50:22, darin wrote:
> Unfortunately, it looks like the patch is not fully uploaded or something. 
The
> tool does not let me see some of the diffs.

Weird - at least it wasn't just me. Re-uploaded the CL.

> actually, i see that there are a number of other structs here that all use
> similar naming rules.  for now, you should just be consistent.  maybe there is
a
> separate task to re-think some of these names.

Agreed. "lower_open" could definitely use a rename and comments to clarify that
open = non-inclusive (although the "open" terminology is in the spec, hence that
should be kept). I'll file a crbug

[jsbell, 2011-12-16 19:46:10]

dgrogan@ - can you sanity check the changes re: thread_id and
IndexedDBDispatcher::ThreadSpecificInstance ?

darin@ - OWNERS review? (unless we get the file reorg done first!)

[darin (slow to review), 2011-12-16 19:53:00]

owners LGTM

[dgrogan, 2011-12-16 19:57:22]

LGTM