Untangle bad depdenency from fxjse/ to fpdfsdk/

Untangle bad depdenency from fxjse/ to fpdfsdk/

This CL moves the pieces of fpdfsdk/jsapi that were being used by fxjse/ to
to the fxjse/ layer and uses those from fpdfsdk/.

BUG=pdfium:506

[dsinclair, 2016-06-09 20:25:14]

Thoughts? This feels pretty heavy handed but it straightens out the layering.

This isn't commitable as is because it will break non-xfa builds. We'll need to
make a fxjse build target that has fxjs_perisolatedata normally and a
pdf_enable_xfa section for the rest of the files.

[dsinclair, 2016-06-09 20:48:20]

dsinclair@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ thestig@chromium.org, tsepez@chromium.org

[dsinclair, 2016-06-09 20:48:20]

See previous message for notes, forgot to add reviewers, heh.

[Lei Zhang, 2016-06-09 20:50:46]

I defer to Tom on javascripty stuff.

[Tom Sepez, 2016-06-09 21:15:18]

On 2016/06/09 20:50:46, Lei Zhang (Slow) wrote:
> I defer to Tom on javascripty stuff.

Not quite.  FXJSE can depend on FXJS but not the other way around.
In some sense, FXJS should be a parallel component to FXJSE both of which
encapsulate v8.
sdk -> fxjs (and fxjse in theory from the xfa crap in sdk but hopefully not)
xfa -> fxjse
fxjse -> fxjs
fxjs -> v8
fxjse -> v8

[dsinclair, 2016-06-09 23:40:23]

On 2016/06/09 21:15:18, Tom Sepez wrote:
> On 2016/06/09 20:50:46, Lei Zhang (Slow) wrote:
> > I defer to Tom on javascripty stuff.
> 
> Not quite.  FXJSE can depend on FXJS but not the other way around.
> In some sense, FXJS should be a parallel component to FXJSE both of which
> encapsulate v8.
> sdk -> fxjs (and fxjse in theory from the xfa crap in sdk but hopefully not)
> xfa -> fxjse
> fxjse -> fxjs
> fxjs -> v8
> fxjse -> v8

 K, I'll move fpdfsdk/jsapi up to fxjs/ and then everything should be fine as
the dependency goes the right way.