Manage ServiceWorkerDispatcherHost in ServiceWorkerContextCore

content/common/service_worker/service_worker_provider.h

+// Copyright 2017 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
+// Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
+// found in the LICENSE file.
+
+#ifndef CONTENT_COMMON_SERVICE_WORKER_SERVICE_WORKER_PROVIDER_H_
+#define CONTENT_COMMON_SERVICE_WORKER_SERVICE_WORKER_PROVIDER_H_
+
+#include "content/common/service_worker/service_worker_types.h"
+
+namespace content {
+
+struct CONTENT_EXPORT ServiceWorkerProviderHostInfo {

[falken, 2017/02/09 01:03:19]

nit: If this is the only thing meant for this file, should it just be named
"service_worker_provider_host_info.h" instead?

[shimazu, 2017/02/13 03:25:56]

I'm planning to add ServiceWorkerProviderClientInfo to construct
ServiceWorkerProviderContext on later patch.
(SWProviderHostInfo in https://crrev.com/2627413002 will be SWProviderClientInfo
later.)

[falken, 2017/02/13 05:59:23]

If SWProviderHostInfo will become SWProviderClientInfo, then it sounds like this
file should be named "service_worker_provider_client_info.h" at that time. But
in this patch I think it we should just name it
"service_worker_provider_host_info.h" and then rename it when its content
changes.

[shimazu, 2017/02/13 08:20:19]

That sounds more reasonable. Renamed:)

+  ServiceWorkerProviderHostInfo();
+  ServiceWorkerProviderHostInfo(ServiceWorkerProviderHostInfo&& other);
+  ServiceWorkerProviderHostInfo(
+      int provider_id, int route_id, ServiceWorkerProviderType type,
+      bool is_parent_frame_secure);
+  ~ServiceWorkerProviderHostInfo();
+
+  int provider_id;
+  int route_id;
+  ServiceWorkerProviderType type;
+  bool is_parent_frame_secure;
+
+ private:
+  DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN(ServiceWorkerProviderHostInfo);
+};
+
+}  // namespace content
+
+#endif  // CONTENT_COMMON_SERVICE_WORKER_SERVICE_WORKER_PROVIDER_H_