Rename Node::willBeDeletedFrom() to willBeDeletedFromDocument()

Rename Node::willBeDeletedFrom() to willBeDeletedFromDocument()

Rename Node::willBeDeletedFrom() to willBeDeletedFromDocument() and remove
argument since it is always called with the current Node's document.
Also make willBeDeletedFromDocument() protected.

BUG=

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=160364

[adamk, 2013-10-16 17:15:17]

This is fine, but I think this method could use some rethinking. We always pass
in Node::document() anyway, so it's a little weird that it's even passed. I
think the intention is really:

Node::willBeDeleted()
{
  ASSERT(documentInternal());
  ... // body just uses document()
}

Adding morrita (who created this method recently).

https://codereview.chromium.org/26900006/diff/1/Source/core/dom/Node.h
File Source/core/dom/Node.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/26900006/diff/1/Source/core/dom/Node.h#newcod...
Source/core/dom/Node.h:165: void willBeDeletedFrom(Document&);
This method really should be protected, it only exists to be called by
subclasses that need more control over their destruction ordering.

[Hajime Morrita, 2013-10-23 06:09:13]

On 2013/10/16 17:15:17, adamk wrote:
> This is fine, but I think this method could use some rethinking. We always
pass
> in Node::document() anyway, so it's a little weird that it's even passed. I
> think the intention is really:
> 
> Node::willBeDeleted()
> {
>   ASSERT(documentInternal());
>   ... // body just uses document()
> }
> 
> Adding morrita (who created this method recently).

Getting rid of the parameter seems nice.
I think I did it because I want to write it "will be deleted from document".
So renaming willBeDeletedFromDocument() is preferable. This is really a nitpicky
point though.

> 
> https://codereview.chromium.org/26900006/diff/1/Source/core/dom/Node.h
> File Source/core/dom/Node.h (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/26900006/diff/1/Source/core/dom/Node.h#newcod...
> Source/core/dom/Node.h:165: void willBeDeletedFrom(Document&);
> This method really should be protected, it only exists to be called by
> subclasses that need more control over their destruction ordering.

[Inactive, 2013-10-23 17:55:39]

I took the feedback into consideration. Please take another look.

[adamk, 2013-10-23 18:33:32]

thanks, lgtm!

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-10-23 18:36:40]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/ch.dumez@samsung.com/26900006/17001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-10-23 19:33:06]

Change committed as 160364