Remove redundant static singleton for DeviceSensors

Remove redundant static singleton for DeviceSensors

The singleton Java DeviceSensors object is owned by a singleton
SensorManagerAndroid so there is no need to maintain a reference to the
singleton in both Java and C++. This silences the lint warning about
keeping references to the Context object in a static field because now
the static field is in C++ and thus invisible to the linter.

BUG=635567
Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2860633003
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#468863}
Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/268bd8b3738aa5e18df731c881893a797032b37b

[Reilly Grant (use Gerrit), 2017-05-03 00:54:56]

reillyg@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ ortuno@chromium.org

[Reilly Grant (use Gerrit), 2017-05-03 00:54:57]

PTAL

[Reilly Grant (use Gerrit), 2017-05-03 00:56:01]

The CQ bit was checked by reillyg@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-03 00:56:47]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch.

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

[ortuno, 2017-05-03 01:15:58]

lgtm

[Reilly Grant (use Gerrit), 2017-05-03 01:18:19]

The CQ bit was unchecked by reillyg@chromium.org

[Reilly Grant (use Gerrit), 2017-05-03 01:18:22]

The CQ bit was checked by reillyg@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-03 01:18:38]

CQ is trying da patch.

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

[ortuno, 2017-05-03 01:22:12]

I was thinking about base::Singleton's guarantees and if jni might break some of
them. I couldn't think about any cases where this would happen but I'm not that
familiar with it so I'm not 100% confident here. You might want to ask someone
like jyasskin about it.

[Reilly Grant (use Gerrit), 2017-05-03 01:28:28]

On 2017/05/03 01:22:12, ortuno wrote:
> I was thinking about base::Singleton's guarantees and if jni might break some
of
> them. I couldn't think about any cases where this would happen but I'm not
that
> familiar with it so I'm not 100% confident here. You might want to ask someone
> like jyasskin about it.

Even so, I don't see any harm in creating multiple instances of
org.chromium.device.sensors.DeviceSensors.

[Reilly Grant (use Gerrit), 2017-05-03 01:28:44]

reillyg@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jyasskin@chromium.org

[Reilly Grant (use Gerrit), 2017-05-03 01:28:44]

+jyasskin

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-03 01:53:04]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 1, "attempt_start_ts": 1493774302617360, "parent_rev":
"284ec61c76d48490010b2f1c80628306d4d75a7f", "commit_rev":
"268bd8b3738aa5e18df731c881893a797032b37b"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-03 01:53:13]

Description was changed from

==========
Remove redundant static singleton for DeviceSensors

The singleton Java DeviceSensors object is owned by a singleton
SensorManagerAndroid so there is no need to maintain a reference to the
singleton in both Java and C++. This silences the lint warning about
keeping references to the Context object in a static field because now
the static field is in C++ and thus invisible to the linter.

BUG=635567
==========

to

==========
Remove redundant static singleton for DeviceSensors

The singleton Java DeviceSensors object is owned by a singleton
SensorManagerAndroid so there is no need to maintain a reference to the
singleton in both Java and C++. This silences the lint warning about
keeping references to the Context object in a static field because now
the static field is in C++ and thus invisible to the linter.

BUG=635567

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2860633003
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#468863}
Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/268bd8b3738aa5e18df731c88189...
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-03 01:53:15]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1) as
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/268bd8b3738aa5e18df731c88189...