Manage ServiceWorkerDispatcherHost in ServiceWorkerContextCore

content/common/service_worker/service_worker_provider_host_info.h

Index: content/common/service_worker/service_worker_provider_host_info.h
diff --git a/content/common/service_worker/service_worker_provider_host_info.h b/content/common/service_worker/service_worker_provider_host_info.h
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..106fb620ab3339552b1ea0a010d951d8a26106f6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/common/service_worker/service_worker_provider_host_info.h
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+// 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_HOST_INFO_H_
+#define CONTENT_COMMON_SERVICE_WORKER_SERVICE_WORKER_PROVIDER_HOST_INFO_H_
+
+#include "content/common/service_worker/service_worker_types.h"
+
+namespace content {
+
+struct CONTENT_EXPORT ServiceWorkerProviderHostInfo {
+  ServiceWorkerProviderHostInfo();
+  ServiceWorkerProviderHostInfo(ServiceWorkerProviderHostInfo&& other);

[dcheng, 2017/02/14 08:47:46]

Is it necessary to make this move-only? The struct itself is pretty small it
seems, and moving is basically going to copy anyway.

[shimazu, 2017/02/15 02:24:19]

I'm planning to add AssociatedInterfacePtr in this struct on a later patch ( WIP
patch: https://crrev.com/2653493009), so this is not actually necessary to be
move-only. 
Sorry for confusing.
Would it be better to allow copying here and make this move-only on the later
patch? 

[dcheng, 2017/02/15 04:29:35]

Ah, OK. Let's just leave it as-is to avoid churn then.

+  ServiceWorkerProviderHostInfo(int provider_id,
+                                int route_id,
+                                ServiceWorkerProviderType type,
+                                bool is_parent_frame_secure);
+  ~ServiceWorkerProviderHostInfo();
+
+  // This is unique within its child process except for PlzNavigate. When
+  // PlzNavigate is on, |provider_id| is managed on the browser process and it
+  // will be unique among all of providers.
+  int provider_id;
+
+  // When this provider is created for a document, |route_id| is the frame ID of
+  // it. When this provider is created for a Shared Worker, |route_id| is the
+  // Shared Worker route ID. When this provider is created for a Service Worker,
+  // |route_id| is MSG_ROUTING_NONE.
+  int route_id;
+
+  // This identifies whether this provider is for Service Worker controllees
+  // (documents and Shared Workers) or for controllers (Service Workers).
+  ServiceWorkerProviderType type;
+
+  // |is_parent_frame_secure| is false if the provider is created for a document
+  // whose parent frame is not secure from the point of view of the document;
+  // that is, blink::WebFrame::canHaveSecureChild() returns false. This doesn't
+  // mean the document is necessarily an insecure context, because the document
+  // may have a URL whose scheme is granted an exception that allows bypassing
+  // the ancestor secure context check. See the comment in
+  // blink::Document::isSecureContextImpl for more details. If the provider is
+  // not created for a document, or the document does not have a parent frame,
+  // is_parent_frame_secure| is true.
+  bool is_parent_frame_secure;

[dcheng, 2017/02/14 08:47:46]

Out of curiosity, is this something we can eventually remove? In theory, we
should be able to determine this information in the browser.

[shimazu, 2017/02/15 02:24:19]

falken: do you know why? IIRC falken implemented that.

+
+ private:
+  DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN(ServiceWorkerProviderHostInfo);
+};
+
+}  // namespace content
+
+#endif  // CONTENT_COMMON_SERVICE_WORKER_SERVICE_WORKER_PROVIDER_HOST_INFO_H_