Pass implementation object to supplemental classes by reference

Pass implementation object to supplemental classes by reference

Pass implementation object to supplemental classes by reference instead of by
pointer as it can never be null. It makes the code look safer and avoids having
a lot of assertions in the implementation.

R=adamk@chromium.org, haraken@chromium.org, abarth, adamk, haraken

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=167547

[Inactive, 2014-02-19 23:47:51]

Sorry, the CL is big but this is a very mechanical change.

[haraken, 2014-02-20 00:25:13]

I just scanned code_generator_v8.pm and several files. LGTM.

[Inactive, 2014-02-20 13:21:36]

On 2014/02/20 00:25:13, haraken wrote:
> I just scanned code_generator_v8.pm and several files. LGTM.

Thanks, still needs approval for web/ and platform/.

[adamk, 2014-02-20 19:49:57]

rslgtm

I looked at the platform/ changes and a random assortment of files.

[Inactive, 2014-02-20 23:01:10]

Committed patchset #4 manually as r167547 (presubmit successful).

[dcheng, 2014-02-28 20:54:41]

https://codereview.chromium.org/171333003/diff/740001/Source/modules/screen_o...
File Source/modules/screen_orientation/ScreenOrientation.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/171333003/diff/740001/Source/modules/screen_o...
Source/modules/screen_orientation/ScreenOrientation.cpp:65:
ASSERT(m_associatedDOMWindow->document());
Please be careful when making these changes. The original code was already
incorrect, but the assumption that DOMWindow/Document can never be null is not
correct. I do not know if there are other such errors in this patch.

[dcheng, 2014-02-28 21:13:39]

https://codereview.chromium.org/171333003/diff/740001/Source/modules/screen_o...
File Source/modules/screen_orientation/ScreenOrientation.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/171333003/diff/740001/Source/modules/screen_o...
Source/modules/screen_orientation/ScreenOrientation.cpp:65:
ASSERT(m_associatedDOMWindow->document());
On 2014/02/28 20:54:42, dcheng wrote:
> Please be careful when making these changes. The original code was already
> incorrect, but the assumption that DOMWindow/Document can never be null is not
> correct. I do not know if there are other such errors in this patch.

Actually, I'm wrong so ignore me for now. Sorry for the noise! I had some extra
changes in my local build.