Update Java Bridge to use its own thread in the browser process

content/browser/browser_main_loop.h

Index: content/browser/browser_main_loop.h
diff --git a/content/browser/browser_main_loop.h b/content/browser/browser_main_loop.h
index 6628200a1f0f079ad4f6e27ee4ed8ad05421cd11..9224fc0f14c8534f3f5be0bd5618963ea25023dd 100644
--- a/content/browser/browser_main_loop.h
+++ b/content/browser/browser_main_loop.h
@@ -86,6 +86,7 @@ class BrowserMainLoop {
   scoped_ptr<BrowserProcessSubThread> process_launcher_thread_;
   scoped_ptr<BrowserProcessSubThread> cache_thread_;
   scoped_ptr<BrowserProcessSubThread> io_thread_;
+  scoped_ptr<BrowserProcessSubThread> java_bridge_thread_;

[joth, 2011/12/08 18:25:54]

I was wondering whether having a base::Thread owned by
JavaBridgeDispatcherHostManager would be cleaner? This would avoid spilling
knowledge of this fairly constrained use case all over the code, and mean it
could be lazy-created when the JavaBridgeDispatcherHost is created (passing the
MessageLoopProxy in as an extra param) but would mean each tab would get its own
thread, unless there's a sane way to share them. (another LazyInstance....)

Thoughts?

[Steve Block, 2011/12/09 12:39:10]

Yeah, I thought about this, but if we want it to be a BrowserThread, it needs to
be created and destroyed with the other BrowserThreads. I'll have a look at
making it a plain Thread, internal to JavaBridgeDispatcherHost.

 #if defined(OS_CHROMEOS)
   scoped_ptr<BrowserProcessSubThread> web_socket_proxy_thread_;
 #endif