Revert of Adjust callers and networking delegates in extensions/ to modified APIs

Revert of Adjust callers and networking delegates in extensions/ to modified APIs (patchset #1 id:40001 of https://codereview.chromium.org/2264973002/ )

Reason for revert:
waiting for someone who knows networking code better

Original issue's description:
> Adjust callers and networking delegates in extensions/ to modified APIs
> 
> Use modified Read and delegate methods from the following CL-
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2262653003/
> 
> ExtensionWebRequestEventRouter::OnResponseStarted,
> OnCompleted and OnErrorOccured are needed to be overloaded,
> because some callers in chrome/ are using these old methods.
> These methods will be completely removed in ~ 1 week once
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2264903003/ is upstreamed
> as well.
> 
> BUG=423484
> 
> Committed: https://crrev.com/450052de137a95b0a956bc77964ea97605de40af
> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#416585}

TBR=jamescook@chromium.org,finnur@chromium.org
# Skipping CQ checks because original CL landed less than 1 days ago.
NOPRESUBMIT=true
NOTREECHECKS=true
NOTRY=true
BUG=423484

[maksims (do not use this acc), 2016-09-06 09:55:35]

The CQ bit was checked by maksim.sisov@intel.com

[maksims (do not use this acc), 2016-09-06 09:55:36]

Created Revert of Adjust callers and networking delegates in extensions/ to
modified APIs

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-06 09:55:42]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-06 09:55:42]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-06 09:55:43]

No L-G-T-M from a valid reviewer yet. 
CQ run can only be started by full committers or once the patch has
received an L-G-T-M from a full committer.
Even if an L-G-T-M may have been provided, it was from a non-committer,
_not_ a full super star committer.
See http://www.chromium.org/getting-involved/become-a-committer
Note that this has nothing to do with OWNERS files.

[maksims (do not use this acc), 2016-09-06 09:56:21]

maksim.sisov@intel.com changed reviewers:
- jamescook@chromium.org

[maksims (do not use this acc), 2016-09-06 09:56:22]

please approve

[Finnur, 2016-09-06 09:59:02]

The CQ bit was checked by finnur@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-06 09:59:11]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-06 09:59:11]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-09-06 09:59:12]

No L-G-T-M from a valid reviewer yet. 
CQ run can only be started by full committers or once the patch has
received an L-G-T-M from a full committer.
Even if an L-G-T-M may have been provided, it was from a non-committer,
_not_ a full super star committer.
See http://www.chromium.org/getting-involved/become-a-committer
Note that this has nothing to do with OWNERS files.

[maksims (do not use this acc), 2016-09-06 09:59:43]

But I still don't understand why to ask someone else to review? The main patch
that modified URLRequest::Read and it's delegate methods was approved. I've been
working with a person from networking team for several months already. This
client side change is very trivial, but up to you....

[Finnur, 2016-09-06 13:44:25]

When selecting reviewer(s), you should look for two things:

a) Someone who understands well the decision making behind (and implications of)
the proposed change. That's who you should pick as the reviewer.
b) The owner of the code to bless that the reviewed change can go through.

Ideally, the same person fulfills both roles. Frequently, however, the owner is
not the best candidate to review and can only give a OWNERS approval after a
review has taken place. For this CL I don't belong to the a) camp. I didn't
write the Web Request API and I'm not a specialist in networking. Therefore I'm
not sure what implications your change has. 

I recognize, however, that this is part of an effort to clean up the code and
was willing to give you owners approval under the condition that you get someone
from networking to review before checking in. 

I didn't want you to check in before that, but that's water under the bridge.
But it is probably overkill to revert. For a non-controversial cleanup it would
have sufficed to just get a post-commit green light from a reviewer that is well
versed in the networking aspect of this change. Perhaps the person from the
networking team that you were working with?

[maksims (do not use this acc), 2016-09-06 19:58:26]

On 2016/09/06 13:44:25, Finnur wrote:
> When selecting reviewer(s), you should look for two things:
> 
> a) Someone who understands well the decision making behind (and implications
of)
> the proposed change. That's who you should pick as the reviewer.
> b) The owner of the code to bless that the reviewed change can go through.
> 
> Ideally, the same person fulfills both roles. Frequently, however, the owner
is
> not the best candidate to review and can only give a OWNERS approval after a
> review has taken place. For this CL I don't belong to the a) camp. I didn't
> write the Web Request API and I'm not a specialist in networking. Therefore
I'm
> not sure what implications your change has. 
> 
> I recognize, however, that this is part of an effort to clean up the code and
> was willing to give you owners approval under the condition that you get
someone
> from networking to review before checking in. 
> 
> I didn't want you to check in before that, but that's water under the bridge.
> But it is probably overkill to revert. For a non-controversial cleanup it
would
> have sufficed to just get a post-commit green light from a reviewer that is
well
> versed in the networking aspect of this change. Perhaps the person from the
> networking team that you were working with?

Ok, sorry once again. As you can see from the original CL, he is not against
that. I'll close this one then.

[maksims (do not use this acc), 2016-09-06 19:58:39]

Description was changed from

==========
Revert of Adjust callers and networking delegates in extensions/ to modified
APIs (patchset #1 id:40001 of https://codereview.chromium.org/2264973002/ )

Reason for revert:
waiting for someone who knows networking code better

Original issue's description:
> Adjust callers and networking delegates in extensions/ to modified APIs
> 
> Use modified Read and delegate methods from the following CL-
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2262653003/
> 
> ExtensionWebRequestEventRouter::OnResponseStarted,
> OnCompleted and OnErrorOccured are needed to be overloaded,
> because some callers in chrome/ are using these old methods.
> These methods will be completely removed in ~ 1 week once
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2264903003/ is upstreamed
> as well.
> 
> BUG=423484
> 
> Committed: https://crrev.com/450052de137a95b0a956bc77964ea97605de40af
> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#416585}

TBR=jamescook@chromium.org,finnur@chromium.org
# Skipping CQ checks because original CL landed less than 1 days ago.
NOPRESUBMIT=true
NOTREECHECKS=true
NOTRY=true
BUG=423484
==========

to

==========
Revert of Adjust callers and networking delegates in extensions/ to modified
APIs (patchset #1 id:40001 of https://codereview.chromium.org/2264973002/ )

Reason for revert:
waiting for someone who knows networking code better

Original issue's description:
> Adjust callers and networking delegates in extensions/ to modified APIs
> 
> Use modified Read and delegate methods from the following CL-
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2262653003/
> 
> ExtensionWebRequestEventRouter::OnResponseStarted,
> OnCompleted and OnErrorOccured are needed to be overloaded,
> because some callers in chrome/ are using these old methods.
> These methods will be completely removed in ~ 1 week once
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2264903003/ is upstreamed
> as well.
> 
> BUG=423484
> 
> Committed: https://crrev.com/450052de137a95b0a956bc77964ea97605de40af
> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#416585}

TBR=jamescook@chromium.org,finnur@chromium.org
# Skipping CQ checks because original CL landed less than 1 days ago.
NOPRESUBMIT=true
NOTREECHECKS=true
NOTRY=true
BUG=423484
==========