content/common/url_loader_factory.mojom - Issue 1970693002: Use mojo for Chrome Loading, Part 1

Side by Side Diff: content/common/url_loader_factory.mojom

Issue 1970693002: Use mojo for Chrome Loading, Part 1 (Closed) Base URL: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git@master

Patch Set: Created 4 years, 7 months ago

Use n/p to move between diff chunks; N/P to move between comments. Draft comments are only viewable by you.

Jump to:

View unified diff | Download patch

OLD	NEW
1 // Copyright 2016 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.	1 // Copyright 2016 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.

2 // Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be	2 // Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be

3 // found in the LICENSE file.	3 // found in the LICENSE file.

4	4

5 #import <UIKit/UIKit.h>	5 module content.mojom;

6 #import <XCTest/XCTest.h>

7	6

8 @interface EmptyFile : NSObject	7 import "url_loader.mojom";

9 @end

10	8

11 @implementation EmptyFile	9 interface URLLoaderFactory {

12 @end	10 CreateURLLoader(URLLoader& loader);
	mmenke 2016/05/26 15:18:49 I don't suppose we can combine with with Start? i I don't suppose we can combine with with Start? i.e. take a request_id, URLRequest, and URLLoaderClient? I'm not set on a combined create+start being the ideal API, but it makes ownership semantecs for the URLLoader sane. If, once the RDH is using a purely mojo API, you want to change how things work, and have a reasonably ownership model to go with it, I'm certainly fine with changing it. yhirano 2016/05/27 11:30:34 I think it is at least non-trivial work. content:: Show quoted text On 2016/05/26 15:18:49, mmenke wrote: > I don't suppose we can combine with with Start? i.e. take a request_id, > URLRequest, and URLLoaderClient? I'm not set on a combined create+start being > the ideal API, but it makes ownership semantecs for the URLLoader sane. If, > once the RDH is using a purely mojo API, you want to change how things work, and > have a reasonably ownership model to go with it, I'm certainly fine with > changing it. I think it is at least non-trivial work. content::URLLoaderFactoryImpl is bound to UI thread, and if we pass a client, it will be bound to that thread, too. mmenke 2016/05/27 15:39:26 Can we move URLLoaderFactoryImpl over to the UI th Show quoted text On 2016/05/27 11:30:34, yhirano wrote: > On 2016/05/26 15:18:49, mmenke wrote: > > I don't suppose we can combine with with Start? i.e. take a request_id, > > URLRequest, and URLLoaderClient? I'm not set on a combined create+start being > > the ideal API, but it makes ownership semantecs for the URLLoader sane. If, > > once the RDH is using a purely mojo API, you want to change how things work, > and > > have a reasonably ownership model to go with it, I'm certainly fine with > > changing it. > > I think it is at least non-trivial work. content::URLLoaderFactoryImpl is bound > to UI thread, and if we pass a client, it will be bound to that thread, too. Can we move URLLoaderFactoryImpl over to the UI thread? Make it owned by the RDH? (Or make the RDH itself the factory?) mmenke 2016/05/27 15:41:04 OVer to the IO thread, rather. Show quoted text On 2016/05/27 15:39:26, mmenke wrote: > On 2016/05/27 11:30:34, yhirano wrote: > > On 2016/05/26 15:18:49, mmenke wrote: > > > I don't suppose we can combine with with Start? i.e. take a request_id, > > > URLRequest, and URLLoaderClient? I'm not set on a combined create+start > being > > > the ideal API, but it makes ownership semantecs for the URLLoader sane. If, > > > once the RDH is using a purely mojo API, you want to change how things work, > > and > > > have a reasonably ownership model to go with it, I'm certainly fine with > > > changing it. > > > > I think it is at least non-trivial work. content::URLLoaderFactoryImpl is > bound > > to UI thread, and if we pass a client, it will be bound to that thread, too. > > Can we move URLLoaderFactoryImpl over to the UI thread? Make it owned by the > RDH? (Or make the RDH itself the factory?) OVer to the IO thread, rather. yhirano 2016/06/07 08:16:57 Done. Show quoted text On 2016/05/27 15:41:04, mmenke wrote: > On 2016/05/27 15:39:26, mmenke wrote: > > On 2016/05/27 11:30:34, yhirano wrote: > > > On 2016/05/26 15:18:49, mmenke wrote: > > > > I don't suppose we can combine with with Start? i.e. take a request_id, > > > > URLRequest, and URLLoaderClient? I'm not set on a combined create+start > > being > > > > the ideal API, but it makes ownership semantecs for the URLLoader sane. > If, > > > > once the RDH is using a purely mojo API, you want to change how things > work, > > > and > > > > have a reasonably ownership model to go with it, I'm certainly fine with > > > > changing it. > > > > > > I think it is at least non-trivial work. content::URLLoaderFactoryImpl is > > bound > > > to UI thread, and if we pass a client, it will be bound to that thread, too. > > > > Can we move URLLoaderFactoryImpl over to the UI thread? Make it owned by the > > RDH? (Or make the RDH itself the factory?) > > OVer to the IO thread, rather. Done.
	11 };

OLD	NEW

« content/browser/loader/url_loader_factory_impl_unittest.cc ('K') | « content/common/url_loader.mojom ('k') | content/common/url_loader_status.typemap » ('j') | no next file with comments »