gtk: Allow building both the X11 and Gtk message-pumps for gtk.

gtk: Allow building both the X11 and Gtk message-pumps for gtk.

This patch allows both the X11 and the Gtk message-pumps to be built
in a linux-gtk build. A subsequent patch will use the X11 message-pump
for the GPU process, while continue to use the Gtk message-pump for the
browser process.

BUG=145600
R=ccameron@chromium.org, oshima@chromium.org, piman@chromium.org, thakis@chromium.org

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=221873

[sadrul, 2013-09-05 14:35:10]

This seems to build+run OK for me.

The fist CL in this series: https://codereview.chromium.org/23537016/
the second: https://codereview.chromium.org/23880006/
and this is the last one.

All three combined are in patchset3 here
(https://codereview.chromium.org/23450020/#ps10001)

Although it seems to work OK for me, can you give it a try and see if this
actually works as you expect? If so, I can start cleaning up the first two
patches and start pestering owners about them.

[sadrul, 2013-09-05 14:36:32]

Wrong CL! This is the second one in the series. All combined is
https://codereview.chromium.org/23450020/

[sadrul, 2013-09-06 18:04:04]

This patch goes on top of https://codereview.chromium.org/23537016/

[piman, 2013-09-06 18:36:25]

https://codereview.chromium.org/23880006/diff/16001/base/message_loop/message...
File base/message_loop/message_pump_aurax11.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/23880006/diff/16001/base/message_loop/message...
base/message_loop/message_pump_aurax11.h:1: // Copyright (c) 2012 The Chromium
Authors. All rights reserved.
Do we still need this header? Can't we replace explicit mentions of
MessagePumpAuraX11 by MessagePumpX11? There can't be that many...

[sadrul, 2013-09-06 21:02:04]

https://codereview.chromium.org/23880006/diff/16001/base/message_loop/message...
File base/message_loop/message_pump_aurax11.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/23880006/diff/16001/base/message_loop/message...
base/message_loop/message_pump_aurax11.h:1: // Copyright (c) 2012 The Chromium
Authors. All rights reserved.
On 2013/09/06 18:36:26, piman wrote:
> Do we still need this header? Can't we replace explicit mentions of
> MessagePumpAuraX11 by MessagePumpX11? There can't be that many...

Done.

[piman, 2013-09-06 21:05:32]

LGTM, thanks. Wow, there *are* that many...

[Nico, 2013-09-06 21:25:14]

what do you want me to look at here?


On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 2:05 PM, <piman@chromium.org> wrote:

> LGTM, thanks. Wow, there *are* that many...
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.**org/23880006/<https://codereview.chromium.org/2...
>

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

[sadrul, 2013-09-06 22:48:06]

On 2013/09/06 21:25:14, Nico wrote:
> what do you want me to look at here?

Just the base/ changes please. The rest are renames: message_pump_aurax11.h =>
message_pump_x11.h and MessagePumpAuraX11 => MessagePumpX11

[Nico, 2013-09-06 22:50:54]

base/ lgtm

[sadrul, 2013-09-06 22:52:53]

Thanks for the quick review!

+oshima@ for ash/ and chromeos/ owner review.
+sky@ for ui/ owner review.

[Nico, 2013-09-06 22:54:53]

ui/ owners lgtm too, no need to inconvenience sky for that :-)

[ccameron, 2013-09-06 22:55:58]

lgtm2, thanks!!

[sadrul, 2013-09-06 22:59:15]

On 2013/09/06 22:54:53, Nico wrote:
> ui/ owners lgtm too, no need to inconvenience sky for that :-)

Sweet. Thanks!

[oshima, 2013-09-06 23:00:30]

ash/ chromeos/ lgtm

[oshima, 2013-09-06 23:05:24]

On 2013/09/06 23:00:30, oshima wrote:
> ash/ chromeos/ lgtm

by the way, the code under ui/ should probably use ui::GetXDisplay() in
x11_util.h instead of one in base?
(or just remove one in x11_util.h)? I don't feel strongly about either way
though.

[sadrul, 2013-09-06 23:07:07]

On 2013/09/06 23:05:24, oshima wrote:
> On 2013/09/06 23:00:30, oshima wrote:
> > ash/ chromeos/ lgtm
> 
> by the way, the code under ui/ should probably use ui::GetXDisplay() in
> x11_util.h instead of one in base?
> (or just remove one in x11_util.h)? I don't feel strongly about either way
> though.

Indeed. I went with sed for this patch. But I am going to look into reducing the
use of MessagePumpAuraX11 in so many places just to get to the Display.

[sadrul, 2013-09-07 03:21:22]

Committed patchset #8 manually as r221873 (presubmit successful).