Change ownership of BackgroundSyncServiceImpl to BackgroundSyncContextImpl

content/browser/background_sync/background_sync_context_impl.cc

Index: content/browser/background_sync/background_sync_context_impl.cc
diff --git a/content/browser/background_sync/background_sync_context_impl.cc b/content/browser/background_sync/background_sync_context_impl.cc
index 31ad2a0a99cad980f7716102345938974bd4fcbb..7abd1637acf64487f6760dd803d262e253b12e14 100644
--- a/content/browser/background_sync/background_sync_context_impl.cc
+++ b/content/browser/background_sync/background_sync_context_impl.cc
@@ -5,7 +5,9 @@
 #include "content/browser/background_sync/background_sync_context_impl.h"
 
 #include "base/bind.h"
+#include "base/stl_util.h"
 #include "content/browser/background_sync/background_sync_manager.h"
+#include "content/browser/background_sync/background_sync_service_impl.h"
 #include "content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_context_wrapper.h"
 #include "content/public/browser/browser_thread.h"
 
@@ -16,6 +18,8 @@ BackgroundSyncContextImpl::BackgroundSyncContextImpl() {
 }
 
 BackgroundSyncContextImpl::~BackgroundSyncContextImpl() {
+  DCHECK(!background_sync_manager_);

[iclelland, 2015/08/12 04:01:09]

Is this really just asserting that ShutdownOnIO is always called?

[jkarlin, 2015/08/12 11:50:11]

Yes, rather than delete everything in either scenario we're enforcing that
shutdown is called first before deleting. I've added a comment in the header
stating that shutdown must be called.

+  DCHECK(services_.empty());
 }
 
 void BackgroundSyncContextImpl::Init(
@@ -51,9 +55,40 @@ void BackgroundSyncContextImpl::CreateBackgroundSyncManager(
   background_sync_manager_ = BackgroundSyncManager::Create(context);
 }
 
+// static
+void BackgroundSyncContextImpl::CreateService(

[iclelland, 2015/08/12 04:01:08]

Why a static method that takes an instance as the first parameter, rather than
an instance method?

[jkarlin, 2015/08/12 11:50:11]

Good point. Done.

+    const scoped_refptr<BackgroundSyncContextImpl>& context,
+    mojo::InterfaceRequest<BackgroundSyncService> request) {
+  DCHECK_CURRENTLY_ON(BrowserThread::UI);
+
+  BrowserThread::PostTask(
+      BrowserThread::IO, FROM_HERE,
+      base::Bind(&BackgroundSyncContextImpl::CreateServiceOnIOThread, context,
+                 base::Passed(&request)));
+}
+
+void BackgroundSyncContextImpl::CreateServiceOnIOThread(
+    mojo::InterfaceRequest<BackgroundSyncService> request) {
+  DCHECK_CURRENTLY_ON(BrowserThread::IO);
+  if (!background_sync_manager_)

[iclelland, 2015/08/12 04:01:08]

Is this is going to fail silently, should we document when that would occur? Is
this code just for unit tests?

[jkarlin, 2015/08/12 11:50:11]

It can happen in the wild. Documented and log message added.

+    return;
+  services_.insert(
+      new BackgroundSyncServiceImpl(make_scoped_refptr(this), request.Pass()));
+}
+
+void BackgroundSyncContextImpl::ServiceHadConnectionError(
+    BackgroundSyncServiceImpl* service) {
+  DCHECK_CURRENTLY_ON(BrowserThread::IO);
+  DCHECK(ContainsValue(services_, service));
+
+  delete service;
+  services_.erase(service);
+}
+
 void BackgroundSyncContextImpl::ShutdownOnIO() {
   DCHECK_CURRENTLY_ON(BrowserThread::IO);
 
+  STLDeleteElements(&services_);
   background_sync_manager_.reset();
 }