Implement PPB_DeviceRef_Dev.

ppapi/cpp/dev/device_ref_dev.h

Index: ppapi/cpp/dev/device_ref_dev.h
diff --git a/ppapi/cpp/dev/device_ref_dev.h b/ppapi/cpp/dev/device_ref_dev.h
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..515c388790cfc33520672135c7eec3d7d2a95968
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ppapi/cpp/dev/device_ref_dev.h
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+// Copyright (c) 2012 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
+// Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
+// found in the LICENSE file.
+
+#ifndef PPAPI_CPP_DEV_DEVICE_REF_DEV_H_
+#define PPAPI_CPP_DEV_DEVICE_REF_DEV_H_
+
+#include "ppapi/c/dev/ppb_device_ref_dev.h"
+#include "ppapi/cpp/resource.h"
+#include "ppapi/cpp/var.h"
+
+namespace pp {
+
+class DeviceRef_Dev : public Resource {
+ public:
+  DeviceRef_Dev();
+
+  explicit DeviceRef_Dev(PP_Resource resource);
+
+  struct PassRef {};
+
+  DeviceRef_Dev(PassRef, PP_Resource resource);
+
+  DeviceRef_Dev(const DeviceRef_Dev& other);

[viettrungluu, 2012/01/20 18:30:59]

(No action required.)

It's not needed, strictly speaking, but I wonder if it be safer to also
explicitly implement an operator=. (The same applies for FileRef though.)

[yzshen1, 2012/01/20 19:24:49]

I think it is okay to not have one right now, given that we don't have a rule to
define class explicitly with either operator=/copy constructor or
DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN.

+
+  virtual ~DeviceRef_Dev();
+
+  PP_DeviceType_Dev GetType() const;
+
+  Var GetName() const;
+};
+
+}  // namespace pp
+
+#endif  // PPAPI_CPP_DEV_DEVICE_REF_DEV_H_