content/common/service_worker_interfaces.h - Issue 118103002: Add IPC stubs between browser and ServiceWorker's worker context in the child process

Side by Side Diff: content/common/service_worker_interfaces.h

Issue 118103002: Add IPC stubs between browser and ServiceWorker's worker context in the child process (Closed) Base URL: svn://svn.chromium.org/chrome/trunk/src

Patch Set: Created 7 years ago

Use n/p to move between diff chunks; N/P to move between comments. Draft comments are only viewable by you.

Jump to:

View unified diff | Download patch | Annotate | Revision Log

« content/browser/service_worker/embedded_worker_instance.cc ('K') | « content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_dispatcher_host.cc ('k') | content/common/service_worker_interfaces.cc » ('j') | content/common/service_worker_messages.h » ('J')
Toggle Intra-line Diffs ('i') | Expand Comments ('e') | Collapse Comments ('c') | Hide Comments ('s')

OLD	NEW
(Empty)
	1 // Copyright 2013 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
	alecflett 2013/12/19 00:59:11 Quite minor: the name of this file doesn't feel ri Quite minor: the name of this file doesn't feel right to me. I wonder if this could actually be service_worker.h or something? Maybe that's too general. Going the other way, could this be service_worker_fetch.h ? maybe that's too specific. I'm not sure. kinuko 2013/12/20 08:01:09 I was thinking about having 'common' types / defin Show quoted text On 2013/12/19 00:59:11, alecflett wrote: > Quite minor: the name of this file doesn't feel right to me. I wonder if this > could actually be service_worker.h or something? Maybe that's too general. Going > the other way, could this be service_worker_fetch.h ? maybe that's too specific. > I'm not sure. I was thinking about having 'common' types / definitions here that are to be shared by browser and child process, though currently it only has FetchRequest. service_worker_types.h maybe?
	2 // Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be

	3 // found in the LICENSE file.

	4

	5 #ifndef CONTENT_COMMON_SERVICE_WORKER_INTERFACES_H_

	6 #define CONTENT_COMMON_SERVICE_WORKER_INTERFACES_H_

	7

	8 #include <map>

	9 #include <string>

	10

	11 #include "base/basictypes.h"

	12 #include "content/common/content_export.h"

	13 #include "url/gurl.h"

	14

	15 namespace content {

	16

	17 struct CONTENT_EXPORT ServiceWorkerFetchRequest {

	18 GURL url;

	19 std::string method;

	20 std::string referrer;
	alecflett 2013/12/19 00:59:11 What is referrer? Does it overlap with the "Referr What is referrer? Does it overlap with the "Referrer" header? (I think that's ok, because I assume there are cases like https where there is no actual referrer header but we still need it on onfetch? I did something very similar in the prototype, as I was basically just following service_worker.ts) We should just document that with a comment - explain if the 'referrer' header is also present or not. kinuko 2013/12/20 08:01:09 Some of them are taken from old prototype code, bu Show quoted text On 2013/12/19 00:59:11, alecflett wrote: > What is referrer? Does it overlap with the "Referrer" header? > (I think that's ok, because I assume there are cases like https where there is > no actual referrer header but we still need it on onfetch? I did something very > similar in the prototype, as I was basically just following service_worker.ts) > > We should just document that with a comment - explain if the 'referrer' header > is also present or not. Some of them are taken from old prototype code, but for now I removed most of them other than 'url', 'method' and 'headers'. (Again, this struct is basically for placeholder)
	21 std::map<std::string, std::string> headers;

	22 bool is_main_resource_load;

	23

	24 ServiceWorkerFetchRequest();
	alecflett 2013/12/19 00:59:11 If you're going to put constructors on this, is it If you're going to put constructors on this, is it worth putting a constructor that just sets all the fields in one go? kinuko 2013/12/20 08:01:09 Yup. Will do when this struct/class's become more Show quoted text On 2013/12/19 00:59:11, alecflett wrote: > If you're going to put constructors on this, is it worth putting a constructor > that just sets all the fields in one go? Yup. Will do when this struct/class's become more stable and it's actually used.
	25 ~ServiceWorkerFetchRequest();

	26 };

	27

	28 } // namespace content

	29

	30 #endif // CONTENT_COMMON_SERVICE_WORKER_INTERFACES_H_

OLD	NEW