Do cookie checks in NetworkDelegate instead of the URLRequest::Delegate.

content/public/common/content_url_request_user_data.h

+// 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 CONTENT_PUBLIC_COMMON_CONTENT_URL_REQUEST_USER_DATA_H_
+#define CONTENT_PUBLIC_COMMON_CONTENT_URL_REQUEST_USER_DATA_H_
+#pragma once
+
+#include "base/supports_user_data.h"
+#include "content/common/content_export.h"
+
+namespace content {
+
+// The content library will annotate all URLRequests with the following user
+// data if the request can be associated with a given render view.
+class CONTENT_EXPORT ContentURLRequestUserData

[jam, 2012/03/01 19:30:42]

nit: we dont normally add a "Content" prefix to a class in content, since it's
already in the content namespace (content::ContentFoo is redundant)

+    : public base::SupportsUserData::Data {
+ public:
+  ContentURLRequestUserData(int process_id, int routing_id);
+  // Use this, if no render view can be associated with this request.
+  ContentURLRequestUserData();
+  virtual ~ContentURLRequestUserData();
+
+  int process_id() const { return process_id_; }

[willchan no longer on Chromium, 2012/03/01 20:30:10]

Somewhere there should be documentation about these members being set to -1 if
they don't exist, right?

This sort of begs the question to me, why do we even have the 2nd constructor?
Why don't we make sure this is only ever set when it's valid? Is it just for
transition?

+  int routing_id() const { return routing_id_; }
+
+  static const void* kUserDataKey;

[willchan no longer on Chromium, 2012/03/01 20:30:10]

static const void* const

[willchan no longer on Chromium, 2012/03/06 02:59:01]

?

+
+ private:
+  int process_id_;
+  int routing_id_;
+
+  DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN(ContentURLRequestUserData);
+};
+
+}  // namespace content
+
+#endif  // CONTENT_PUBLIC_COMMON_CONTENT_URL_REQUEST_USER_DATA_H_