Expose Durable Storage API to script

Source/modules/quota/DEPS

Index: Source/modules/quota/DEPS
diff --git a/Source/modules/quota/DEPS b/Source/modules/quota/DEPS
index ab6ae0218d784c1a88a67b2d46f65219c42122c9..8c898f18088136d1d25266c8b5005f5916f46309 100644
--- a/Source/modules/quota/DEPS
+++ b/Source/modules/quota/DEPS
@@ -4,6 +4,8 @@ include_rules = [
     "+heap",
     "-modules",
     "+modules/ModulesExport.h",
+    # TODO(mlamouri): Remove modules/permissions. https://crbug.com/510948
+    "+modules/permissions",

[mlamouri (slow - plz ping), 2015/08/04 13:15:19]

I don't think that's right. The end goal of https://crbug.com/510948 isn't to
remove modules/permissions.

[dgrogan, 2015/08/06 23:52:02]

That issue is the only reason we need this extra dependency.

How's the updated phrasing?

[mlamouri (slow - plz ping), 2015/08/07 10:19:14]

You need the dependency to access the PermissionClient. You might very likely
need to use the permissions module for that anyway.

[dgrogan, 2015/08/07 17:24:54]

I don't think that's true. StorageManager.cpp's include of
public/platform/modules/permissions/WebPermissionClient.h should suffice.

[dgrogan, 2015/08/07 17:37:56]

To add more detail, I imagine that 510948 is fixed by adding a method somewhere
that takes an ExecutionContext and returns a WebPermissionClient. Right now that
method lives in modules/permissions, hence the need for the extra DEPS line. We
could move that method to WebPermissionClient. Or maybe we add a new method to
ExecutionContext itself: `WebPermissionClient*
ExecutionContext::getPermissionClient()`. Such a method would also obviate the
need for this extra DEPS line.

I don't know, maybe this extra DEPS line isn't such a big deal. Can one module
depend on another? +haraken for his thoughts on that.

     "+modules/quota",
     "+platform",
     "+public/platform",