[Reland] Allow headless TabSocket in isolated worlds & remove obsolete logic

content/public/common/bindings_policy.h

Index: content/public/common/bindings_policy.h
diff --git a/content/public/common/bindings_policy.h b/content/public/common/bindings_policy.h
index 993c8201173ab15d5de25aa3137485b3f283ba03..dd324eadcded384371e8ffa742be1483df2c7784 100644
--- a/content/public/common/bindings_policy.h
+++ b/content/public/common/bindings_policy.h
@@ -32,11 +32,13 @@ enum BindingsPolicy {
   // normal web contents and are intended only for use with WebUI and layout
   // tests.
   BINDINGS_POLICY_MOJO = 1 << 3,
-  // Similar to BINDINGS_POLICY_MOJO except it's intended for use by
-  // HeadlessWebContents.
-  BINDINGS_POLICY_HEADLESS = 1 << 4,
+  // Bindings that allows the JS content within a HeadlessWebContents to access

[Sami, 2017/05/12 17:18:02]

"main world JS content"

[alex clarke (OOO till 29th), 2017/05/15 09:50:57]

Done.

+  // the headless::TabSocket API.
+  BINDINGS_POLICY_HEADLESS_MAIN_WORLD = 1 << 4,
+  // Similar to BINDINGS_POLICY_HEADLESS_MAIN_WORLD except it's intended allow
+  // access from within DevTools created isolated worlds.

[Sami, 2017/05/12 17:18:02]

"access only from"

[alex clarke (OOO till 29th), 2017/05/15 09:50:57]

Done.

+  BINDINGS_POLICY_HEADLESS_ISOLATED_WORLD = 1 << 5,

[Sami, 2017/05/12 17:18:02]

Since these are only used and make sense in headless/, should we make these
options on the HeadlessWebContents instead?

[alex clarke (OOO till 29th), 2017/05/15 09:50:57]

That's a possibility however what if these values change here so something new
overlaps?  Feels safer if it's here.

[Sami, 2017/05/15 16:30:25]

I meant since content/ doesn't look at these flags at all, they shouldn't need
to be defined here (unless I missed something).

If content/ needs the flag, perhaps we should just keep BINDINGS_POLICY_HEADLESS
and have headless control the main/isolated world distinction based on a
different setting?

[alex clarke (OOO till 29th), 2017/05/16 10:21:23]

The bindings policy is sent from browser to renderer and it seems you're
suggesting we add a new IPC.  I'd prefer not to since this field seems
appropriately named.

 };
-
 }
 
 #endif  // CONTENT_PUBLIC_COMMON_BINDINGS_POLICY_H_