ServiceWorker: Route unregister() through WebServiceWorkerRegistration for refactoring (1)

ServiceWorker: Route unregister() through WebServiceWorkerRegistration for refactoring (1)

This is a refactoring CL for unregister().

Currently an unregister request is routed through WebServiceWorkerProvider, but
this is not straightforward and it should be simpler to route it through
WebServiceWorkerRegistration instead.

In addition to the callpath arrangement, this series of CLs can remove sanity
checks for a given "scope (pattern)" because WebServiceWorkerRegistration has
"registration_id" that can be used to identify a registration to be unregistered in
the browser-side (see the CL[2]).

[1] Blink: THIS PATCH
[2] Chromium: https://codereview.chromium.org/1181973004
[3] Blink: https://codereview.chromium.org/1190503002
[4] Chromium: https://codereview.chromium.org/1186803002

BUG=500404
TEST=compile

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=197274

[nhiroki, 2015-06-15 06:08:16]

Patchset #1 (id:1) has been deleted

[nhiroki, 2015-06-15 06:08:22]

Patchset #1 (id:20001) has been deleted

[nhiroki, 2015-06-15 06:08:28]

Patchset #1 (id:40001) has been deleted

[nhiroki, 2015-06-15 07:10:04]

nhiroki@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ kinuko@chromium.org

[nhiroki, 2015-06-15 07:10:05]

Hi kinuko-san, can you take a look at this and subsequent CLs? Thanks!

[kinuko, 2015-06-16 00:37:54]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1185483003/diff/60001/Source/modules/servicew...
File Source/modules/serviceworkers/ServiceWorkerRegistration.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1185483003/diff/60001/Source/modules/servicew...
Source/modules/serviceworkers/ServiceWorkerRegistration.cpp:108: #ifdef
CRBUG_500404
Why do we have these ifdef's in the same patch where we define it?

If we're going to spend 4 patches it doesn't look we need ifdef tricks, am I
missing something?

[nhiroki, 2015-06-16 01:03:49]

Thank you!

https://codereview.chromium.org/1185483003/diff/60001/Source/modules/servicew...
File Source/modules/serviceworkers/ServiceWorkerRegistration.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1185483003/diff/60001/Source/modules/servicew...
Source/modules/serviceworkers/ServiceWorkerRegistration.cpp:108: #ifdef
CRBUG_500404
On 2015/06/16 00:37:54, kinuko wrote:
> Why do we have these ifdef's in the same patch where we define it?
> 
> If we're going to spend 4 patches it doesn't look we need ifdef tricks, am I
> missing something?

Right, this should be moved to the third CL. Done.

[kinuko, 2015-06-16 01:11:44]

lgtm

[nhiroki, 2015-06-16 01:14:42]

nhiroki@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ tkent@chromium.org

[nhiroki, 2015-06-16 01:14:43]

Hi kent-san, can you review this? Thanks

[tkent, 2015-06-16 01:45:04]

lgtm

[nhiroki, 2015-06-17 15:59:02]

The CQ bit was checked by nhiroki@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-17 15:59:17]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1185483003/80001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-17 19:27:02]

Committed patchset #2 (id:80001) as
https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=197274