InspectorController should lazily initialize InspectorAgents which begin instrumenting at later sta…

InspectorController should lazily initialize InspectorAgents which begin instrumenting at later stage.

Presently InspectorController creates and initializes all the InspectorAgents in the InspectorController.

InspectorController is installed during the Page construction i.e. from the Page() constructor.
Most of these agents are required to instrument at the later stage and hence need not be created/initialized
during the Page construction.

This saves about ~2.5KB of memory allocation during the startup of the page.

BUG=337789
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=165814

[vivekg, 2014-01-24 11:01:02]

PTAL, thank you!

[pfeldman, 2014-01-24 15:54:22]

Oops. I was modularizing agents for geolocation and needed to refactor agents
constructor signatures. This is likely to make your patch unmergeable. I feel
bad now since I knew you were going to do it. Do you want me to merge it in?

[vivekg, 2014-01-24 16:11:16]

On 2014/01/24 15:54:22, pfeldman wrote:
> Oops. I was modularizing agents for geolocation and needed to refactor agents
> constructor signatures. This is likely to make your patch unmergeable. I feel
> bad now since I knew you were going to do it. Do you want me to merge it in?

Yeah sure please go ahead, and thank you! :)

[vivekg, 2014-01-25 09:59:36]

Rebased the patch after merging with the latest patch of yours. PTAL, thanks!

[pfeldman, 2014-01-25 10:39:06]

lgtm. Awesome, thanks, this is nearly identical to the one I was preparing.

https://codereview.chromium.org/146683002/diff/100001/Source/core/inspector/I...
File Source/core/inspector/InspectorController.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/146683002/diff/100001/Source/core/inspector/I...
Source/core/inspector/InspectorController.cpp:83: ,
m_initializeDeferredAgents(true)
nit: i got used to the reversed semantics, i.e.
m_deferredAgentsInitialized

[vivekg, 2014-01-25 11:15:49]

On 2014/01/25 10:39:06, pfeldman wrote:
> lgtm. Awesome, thanks, this is nearly identical to the one I was preparing.
> 
Oops sorry, I thought, today being weekend, you would not be available. Hence
thought of rebasing it with your patch. And also I replied to your comment in #1
after a while yesterday, so thought probably you wouldn't have got my message.

Corrected the boolean to reflect reversed semantic.

Thank you. :)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-01-25 12:53:45]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/vivek.vg@samsung.com/146683002/170001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-01-25 14:32:30]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-01-25 15:45:53]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/vivek.vg@samsung.com/146683002/170001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-01-25 17:11:10]

Change committed as 165814