Implementations of SharedWorker in the renderer process.

content/renderer/shared_worker/embedded_shared_worker_message_filter.cc

+// Copyright 2014 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
+// Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
+// found in the LICENSE file.
+
+#include "content/renderer/shared_worker/embedded_shared_worker_message_filter.h"
+
+#include "base/message_loop/message_loop_proxy.h"
+#include "content/child/child_thread.h"
+#include "content/child/thread_safe_sender.h"
+#include "content/child/worker_thread_task_runner.h"
+#include "content/common/worker_messages.h"
+#include "content/renderer/service_worker/embedded_worker_context_client.h"
+#include "content/renderer/shared_worker/embedded_shared_worker_stub.h"
+#include "ipc/ipc_message_macros.h"
+
+namespace content {
+
+EmbeddedSharedWorkerMessageFilter::EmbeddedSharedWorkerMessageFilter()
+    : main_thread_loop_proxy_(base::MessageLoopProxy::current()) {}
+
+EmbeddedSharedWorkerMessageFilter::~EmbeddedSharedWorkerMessageFilter() {}
+
+base::TaskRunner*
+EmbeddedSharedWorkerMessageFilter::OverrideTaskRunnerForMessage(
+    const IPC::Message& msg) {
+  if (msg.type() != WorkerProcessMsg_CreateWorker::ID)
+    return NULL;
+  return main_thread_loop_proxy_.get();
+}
+
+bool EmbeddedSharedWorkerMessageFilter::OnMessageReceived(
+    const IPC::Message& msg) {
+  if (msg.type() != WorkerProcessMsg_CreateWorker::ID)
+    return false;
+  Tuple1<WorkerProcessMsg_CreateWorker_Params> param;
+  if (!WorkerProcessMsg_CreateWorker::Read(&msg, &param)) {

[kinuko, 2014/02/12 11:49:33]

It feels we'll need new names for these messages?

Could we maybe rename all of these messages to something like
SharedWorkerMsg_Foo to start with?
(Are we going to use the same set of messages?)

[horo, 2014/02/13 05:30:01]

I will define SharedWorkerMsg_CreateWorker in another CL.

+    return false;
+  }
+  new EmbeddedSharedWorkerStub(param.a.url,
+                                param.a.name,
+                                param.a.content_security_policy,
+                                param.a.security_policy_type,
+                                param.a.route_id);
+  return true;

[kinuko, 2014/02/12 11:49:33]

I feel using regular IPC_BEGIN_MESSAGE_MAP would be less error-prone here.

+}
+
+}  // namespace content