Revert r151669 and r155589 as non-Aura Metro mode is gone

Revert r151669 and r155589 as non-Aura Metro mode is gone

Now TSF-related code is completely consolidated into the metro_driver process. We can safely revert the following CLs:
- r155589 : Call TSF-based UI message pump APIs by introducing an injection mechanism into MessageLoopForUI.
- r151669 : Introduce base::win::IsTSFAwareRequired() which indicates if TSF-awareness is required or not.

BUG=319122, 330735
TEST=manually done on Windows 8.1

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=250381

[yukawa, 2014-02-08 04:15:51]

Hi Carlos,
Could you take a look at this CL and give me OWNER approval for base/win/ ?
It's time to get back the simplicity yey!

[cpu_(ooo_6.6-7.5), 2014-02-08 06:23:04]

lgtm

Thank you so much for getting this back to the original state.

[yukawa, 2014-02-08 06:52:17]

Hi Nico, Jói,
Could you give me OWNER approval?
This CL is basically a clean-up of things used in pre-Aura era. They are no
longer necessary as of m-32.

Nico:
  base/*
Jói:
  content/browser/*

Thanks!

[Nico, 2014-02-08 20:10:46]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/141773009/diff/80001/base/message_loop/messag...
File base/message_loop/message_pump_win.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/141773009/diff/80001/base/message_loop/messag...
base/message_loop/message_pump_win.cc:348: if (!!PeekMessage(&msg, NULL, 0, 0,
PM_REMOVE))
Do you need the `!!`? Is just `if (PeekMessage(…` enough?

[yukawa, 2014-02-09 08:09:07]

https://codereview.chromium.org/141773009/diff/80001/base/message_loop/messag...
File base/message_loop/message_pump_win.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/141773009/diff/80001/base/message_loop/messag...
base/message_loop/message_pump_win.cc:348: if (!!PeekMessage(&msg, NULL, 0, 0,
PM_REMOVE))
On 2014/02/08 20:10:46, Nico wrote:
> Do you need the `!!`? Is just `if (PeekMessage(…` enough?

Year, that is not necessary in C but I believe it is preferable
in general in C++.
Caveat: PeekMessage Win32 API returns a BOOL value, which is
actually a typedef of int.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms644943.aspx
At the very least, we don't need to suppress C4800 warning
if we put `!!` there.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/b6801kcy.aspx

It seems that `!!` is not inconsistent in Chromium, even when
compared with ` == FALSE` style
http://goo.gl/9lZaTs
http://goo.gl/LyRazJ
(Disclaimer: The former results contains shorthand of ` == NULL`)

Anyway, I'm fine to use any style as long as owners prefer it.
Let me know if you have some requests.

[Nico, 2014-02-09 20:36:09]

https://codereview.chromium.org/141773009/diff/80001/base/message_loop/messag...
File base/message_loop/message_pump_win.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/141773009/diff/80001/base/message_loop/messag...
base/message_loop/message_pump_win.cc:348: if (!!PeekMessage(&msg, NULL, 0, 0,
PM_REMOVE))
On 2014/02/09 08:09:08, yukawa wrote:
> On 2014/02/08 20:10:46, Nico wrote:
> > Do you need the `!!`? Is just `if (PeekMessage(…` enough?
> 
> Year, that is not necessary in C but I believe it is preferable
> in general in C++.
> Caveat: PeekMessage Win32 API returns a BOOL value, which is
> actually a typedef of int.
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms644943.aspx
> At the very least, we don't need to suppress C4800 warning
> if we put `!!` there.
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/b6801kcy.aspx
> 
> It seems that `!!` is not inconsistent in Chromium, even when
> compared with ` == FALSE` style
> http://goo.gl/9lZaTs
> http://goo.gl/LyRazJ
> (Disclaimer: The former results contains shorthand of ` == NULL`)
> 
> Anyway, I'm fine to use any style as long as owners prefer it.
> Let me know if you have some requests.

I think we build with C4800 enabled. I think `!= 0` reads better than `!!`, but
it's up to you.

[yukawa, 2014-02-10 06:50:45]

https://codereview.chromium.org/141773009/diff/80001/base/message_loop/messag...
File base/message_loop/message_pump_win.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/141773009/diff/80001/base/message_loop/messag...
base/message_loop/message_pump_win.cc:348: if (!!PeekMessage(&msg, NULL, 0, 0,
PM_REMOVE))
On 2014/02/09 20:36:09, Nico wrote:
> On 2014/02/09 08:09:08, yukawa wrote:
> > On 2014/02/08 20:10:46, Nico wrote:
> > > Do you need the `!!`? Is just `if (PeekMessage(…` enough?
> > 
> > Year, that is not necessary in C but I believe it is preferable
> > in general in C++.
> > Caveat: PeekMessage Win32 API returns a BOOL value, which is
> > actually a typedef of int.
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms644943.aspx
> > At the very least, we don't need to suppress C4800 warning
> > if we put `!!` there.
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/b6801kcy.aspx
> > 
> > It seems that `!!` is not inconsistent in Chromium, even when
> > compared with ` == FALSE` style
> > http://goo.gl/9lZaTs
> > http://goo.gl/LyRazJ
> > (Disclaimer: The former results contains shorthand of ` == NULL`)
> > 
> > Anyway, I'm fine to use any style as long as owners prefer it.
> > Let me know if you have some requests.
> 
> I think we build with C4800 enabled. I think `!= 0` reads better than `!!`,
but
> it's up to you.

OK. Switched to ` != FALSE`.

[Jói, 2014-02-10 12:20:40]

I'm not an owner for content/browser. Could try sky@ or one of content/OWNERS.

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 6:50 AM,  <yukawa@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/141773009/diff/80001/base/message_loop/messag...
> File base/message_loop/message_pump_win.cc (right):
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/141773009/diff/80001/base/message_loop/messag...
> base/message_loop/message_pump_win.cc:348: if (!!PeekMessage(&msg, NULL,
> 0, 0, PM_REMOVE))
> On 2014/02/09 20:36:09, Nico wrote:
>>
>> On 2014/02/09 08:09:08, yukawa wrote:
>> > On 2014/02/08 20:10:46, Nico wrote:
>> > > Do you need the `!!`? Is just `if (PeekMessage(...` enough?
>> >
>> > Year, that is not necessary in C but I believe it is preferable
>> > in general in C++.
>> > Caveat: PeekMessage Win32 API returns a BOOL value, which is
>> > actually a typedef of int.
>> >
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms644943.aspx
>>
>> > At the very least, we don't need to suppress C4800 warning
>> > if we put `!!` there.
>> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/b6801kcy.aspx
>> >
>> > It seems that `!!` is not inconsistent in Chromium, even when
>> > compared with ` == FALSE` style
>> > http://goo.gl/9lZaTs
>> > http://goo.gl/LyRazJ
>> > (Disclaimer: The former results contains shorthand of ` == NULL`)
>> >
>> > Anyway, I'm fine to use any style as long as owners prefer it.
>> > Let me know if you have some requests.
>
>
>> I think we build with C4800 enabled. I think `!= 0` reads better than
>
> `!!`, but
>>
>> it's up to you.
>
>
> OK. Switched to ` != FALSE`.
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/141773009/

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

[yukawa, 2014-02-10 12:40:47]

On 2014/02/10 12:20:40, Jói wrote:
> I'm not an owner for content/browser. Could try sky@ or one of content/OWNERS.

Oops, sorry for interrupting you.
Added sky@ as the content/OWNER.

Scott,
Could you take a look at content/browser/browser_main_loop.cc ?

[sky, 2014-02-10 15:56:59]

LGTM

[yukawa, 2014-02-10 16:30:49]

The CQ bit was checked by yukawa@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-02-10 16:31:02]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/yukawa@chromium.org/141773009/330001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-02-10 17:02:07]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-02-10 17:02:08]

Retried try job too often on linux_rel for step(s) check_deps
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=linux_rel&...

[yukawa, 2014-02-11 02:18:23]

The CQ bit was checked by yukawa@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-02-11 02:19:23]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/yukawa@chromium.org/141773009/330001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-02-11 13:49:01]

Change committed as 250381