[sync] Replace MessageLoopProxy usage with ThreadTaskRunnerHandle

Replace MessageLoopProxy usage with ThreadTaskRunnerHandle in sync module.

MessageLoopProxy is deprecated.
This basically does a search and replace:

MessageLoopProxy::current() -> ThreadTaskRunnerHandle::Get().

BUG=391045
Committed: https://crrev.com/171cdbe57a05e46d1e6a304f90eb2821a6e427bd
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#327662}

[anujsharma, 2015-04-28 13:09:51]

anujk.sharma@samsung.com changed reviewers:
+ maniscalco@chromium.org

[anujsharma, 2015-04-28 13:09:52]

PTAL

[maniscalco, 2015-04-28 18:27:29]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1110063004/diff/20001/sync/internal_api/publi...
File sync/internal_api/public/util/weak_handle.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1110063004/diff/20001/sync/internal_api/publi...
sync/internal_api/public/util/weak_handle.h:62: #include
"base/thread_task_runner_handle.h"
Is this include needed?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1110063004/diff/20001/sync/internal_api/publi...
sync/internal_api/public/util/weak_handle.h:66: class SingleThreadTaskRunner;
Given this forward declaration, is the include for single_thread_task_runner.h
necessary in this file?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1110063004/diff/20001/sync/internal_api/publi...
sync/internal_api/public/util/weak_handle.h:123: const
scoped_refptr<base::SingleThreadTaskRunner> owner_loop_proxy_;
How about renaming to owner_loop_task_runner_ ?

[anujsharma, 2015-04-29 05:08:05]

Thanks maniscalco for lgtm.

I have made the changes!!

PTAL

https://codereview.chromium.org/1110063004/diff/20001/sync/internal_api/publi...
File sync/internal_api/public/util/weak_handle.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1110063004/diff/20001/sync/internal_api/publi...
sync/internal_api/public/util/weak_handle.h:62: #include
"base/thread_task_runner_handle.h"
On 2015/04/28 18:27:29, maniscalco wrote:
> Is this include needed?

Removed!!

https://codereview.chromium.org/1110063004/diff/20001/sync/internal_api/publi...
sync/internal_api/public/util/weak_handle.h:66: class SingleThreadTaskRunner;
On 2015/04/28 18:27:29, maniscalco wrote:
> Given this forward declaration, is the include for single_thread_task_runner.h
> necessary in this file?

Yes, it is required.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1110063004/diff/20001/sync/internal_api/publi...
sync/internal_api/public/util/weak_handle.h:123: const
scoped_refptr<base::SingleThreadTaskRunner> owner_loop_proxy_;
On 2015/04/28 18:27:29, maniscalco wrote:
> How about renaming to owner_loop_task_runner_ ?

Done.

[maniscalco, 2015-04-29 15:23:16]

Thanks for doing this.  LGTM modulo one comment...

https://codereview.chromium.org/1110063004/diff/20001/sync/internal_api/publi...
File sync/internal_api/public/util/weak_handle.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1110063004/diff/20001/sync/internal_api/publi...
sync/internal_api/public/util/weak_handle.h:66: class SingleThreadTaskRunner;
On 2015/04/29 05:08:05, anujsharma wrote:
> On 2015/04/28 18:27:29, maniscalco wrote:
> > Given this forward declaration, is the include for
single_thread_task_runner.h
> > necessary in this file?
> 
> Yes, it is required.

Cool, since we're including the header you should be able to remove the forward
declaration.  You generally want only one or the other, not both.

[anujsharma, 2015-04-30 06:00:55]

On 2015/04/29 15:23:16, maniscalco wrote:
> Thanks for doing this.  LGTM modulo one comment...
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1110063004/diff/20001/sync/internal_api/publi...
> File sync/internal_api/public/util/weak_handle.h (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1110063004/diff/20001/sync/internal_api/publi...
> sync/internal_api/public/util/weak_handle.h:66: class SingleThreadTaskRunner;
> On 2015/04/29 05:08:05, anujsharma wrote:
> > On 2015/04/28 18:27:29, maniscalco wrote:
> > > Given this forward declaration, is the include for
> single_thread_task_runner.h
> > > necessary in this file?
> > 
> > Yes, it is required.
> 
> Cool, since we're including the header you should be able to remove the
forward
> declaration.  You generally want only one or the other, not both.

Thanks maniscalco for lgtm.

Based on your suggestion, i have removed the forward declaration.

Thanks!!

[anujsharma, 2015-04-30 06:01:00]

The CQ bit was checked by anujk.sharma@samsung.com

[anujsharma, 2015-04-30 06:01:01]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from
maniscalco@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1110063004/#ps100001
(title: "Fixed suggestion")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-30 06:01:56]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1110063004/100001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-30 06:52:04]

Committed patchset #6 (id:100001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-30 06:52:54]

Patchset 6 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/171cdbe57a05e46d1e6a304f90eb2821a6e427bd
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#327662}