Remove the mutation functions interfaces from URLRequestJobFactory.

Remove the mutation functions interfaces from URLRequestJobFactory.

Mutation functions such as SetProtocolHandler and AddInterceptor are only part of URLRequestJobFactoryImpl.  In practice this means a URLRequestJobFactoryImpl can be configured after construction, then stored as a URLRequestJobFactory where it will no longer have access to these mutators.

BUG=146602

[tedv, 2012-10-22 03:39:03]

This CL depends on two changes, the first of which is
https://codereview.chromium.org/11154006/.  The second change is a bit more
involved, and I'm still working on that one.

[erikwright (departed), 2012-10-22 13:13:30]

Please also update chrome/browser/net/http_intercept_job_factory.{h,cc} either
in this CL or separately. That concrete implementation does not need these
mutation methods (they are NOTREACHED).

https://codereview.chromium.org/11227017/diff/2001/net/url_request/url_reques...
File net/url_request/url_request_job_factory.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/11227017/diff/2001/net/url_request/url_reques...
net/url_request/url_request_job_factory.h:1: // Copyright (c) 2012 The Chromium
Authors. All rights reserved.
No good deed goes unpunished: new policy is to not update copyright dates.

http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=140977

[mmenke, 2012-10-22 14:35:21]

On 2012/10/22 13:13:30, erikwright wrote:
> Please also update chrome/browser/net/http_intercept_job_factory.{h,cc} either
> in this CL or separately. That concrete implementation does not need these
> mutation methods (they are NOTREACHED).


Since those functions are marked OVERRIDE, I believe that has to be done in this
CL.

[tedv, 2012-10-22 14:38:33]

In any case, it's the most reasonable place to do that change.  I'll update the
code when I get home, though this CL is still a little bit away from submission
due to other dependencies that haven't been written yet.

On 2012/10/22 14:35:21, Matt Menke wrote:
> On 2012/10/22 13:13:30, erikwright wrote:
> > Please also update chrome/browser/net/http_intercept_job_factory.{h,cc}
either
> > in this CL or separately. That concrete implementation does not need these
> > mutation methods (they are NOTREACHED).
> 
> 
> Since those functions are marked OVERRIDE, I believe that has to be done in
this
> CL.

[tedv, 2012-10-24 03:07:15]

Removed the other interface as well.

[willchan no longer on Chromium, 2012-10-24 03:20:53]

Great! LGTM

[mmenke, 2012-10-24 16:00:42]

On 2012/10/24 03:20:53, willchan wrote:
> Great! LGTM

LGTM as well.  Nice to get rid of this!

[tedv, 2012-10-24 16:18:36]

On 2012/10/24 16:00:42, Matt Menke wrote:
> On 2012/10/24 03:20:53, willchan wrote:
> > Great! LGTM
> 
> LGTM as well.  Nice to get rid of this!

It's not quite ready to submit yet.  There's a second dependent change I'm
working on now which requires a bit more detailed refactoring, but I'm hoping
this will be ready to submit in the next few weeks (evening work schedule
permitting).

[tedv, 2013-02-11 16:35:28]

This got unblocked late last week, so I wanted to push forward with it. It's
been long enough that another review might be a good idea. The duties break down
as:

mkobisa: android_webview/*
mmenke: net/*

Am I correct in my reading of OWNERS files that chrome/browser/custom_handlers/*
can only be reviewed by chrome/*? That seems suspicious, and I'd like
confirmation before bothering brettw about this patch.

[erikwright (departed), 2013-02-11 16:48:05]

On 2013/02/11 16:35:28, tedv wrote:
> This got unblocked late last week, so I wanted to push forward with it. It's
> been long enough that another review might be a good idea. The duties break
down
> as:
> 
> mkobisa: android_webview/*
> mmenke: net/*
> 
> Am I correct in my reading of OWNERS files that
chrome/browser/custom_handlers/*
> can only be reviewed by chrome/*? That seems suspicious, and I'd like
> confirmation before bothering brettw about this patch.

I think that much of this might have been superseded by
https://codereview.chromium.org/12217095/ :(

[tedv, 2013-02-11 17:40:38]

Yes, that does look suspiciously familiar. Well once the other CL goes through
(assuming nothing horrible happens), I'll clean this one up.

On 2013/02/11 16:48:05, erikwright wrote:
> On 2013/02/11 16:35:28, tedv wrote:
> > This got unblocked late last week, so I wanted to push forward with it. It's
> > been long enough that another review might be a good idea. The duties break
> down
> > as:
> > 
> > mkobisa: android_webview/*
> > mmenke: net/*
> > 
> > Am I correct in my reading of OWNERS files that
> chrome/browser/custom_handlers/*
> > can only be reviewed by chrome/*? That seems suspicious, and I'd like
> > confirmation before bothering brettw about this patch.
> 
> I think that much of this might have been superseded by
> https://codereview.chromium.org/12217095/ :(

[mkosiba (inactive), 2013-02-12 11:31:52]

LGTM for android_webview