Add permission request creator class.

chrome/browser/managed_mode/permission_request_creator.h

Index: chrome/browser/managed_mode/permission_request_creator.h
diff --git a/chrome/browser/managed_mode/permission_request_creator.h b/chrome/browser/managed_mode/permission_request_creator.h
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..44260b3046a9a328f5dc8180918f313bb4573c12
--- /dev/null
+++ b/chrome/browser/managed_mode/permission_request_creator.h
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+// Copyright 2014 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 CHROME_BROWSER_MANAGED_MODE_PERMISSION_REQUEST_CREATOR_H_
+#define CHROME_BROWSER_MANAGED_MODE_PERMISSION_REQUEST_CREATOR_H_
+
+#include <string>
+
+#include "base/callback_forward.h"
+#include "base/compiler_specific.h"
+#include "base/memory/scoped_ptr.h"
+#include "base/strings/string16.h"
+
+class GoogleServiceAuthError;
+class OAuth2TokenService;
+
+namespace net {
+class URLRequestContextGetter;
+}
+
+class PermissionRequestCreator {
+ public:
+  typedef base::Callback<void(const GoogleServiceAuthError& /* error */)>
+      PermissionRequestCallback;
+
+  static scoped_ptr<PermissionRequestCreator> Create(
+      OAuth2TokenService* oauth2_token_service,
+      const std::string& account_id,
+      net::URLRequestContextGetter* context);
+
+  virtual ~PermissionRequestCreator();
+
+  virtual void CreatePermissionRequest(

[Bernhard Bauer, 2014/05/15 13:56:40]

Are you planning on adding a mock implementation for tests? Otherwise it's IMO
not worth adding an abstract interface.

[Adrian Kuegel, 2014/05/15 14:35:32]

I assume we will need a mock implementation for tests, or otherwise mock out the
call to the API.

[Bernhard Bauer, 2014/05/15 15:58:18]

OK. Another thing that we could do actually is to use this interface as well for
the code that currently calls ManagedUserSettingsService::UploadItem. Then we'd
just instantiate a different implementation depending on the command line flag.

[Adrian Kuegel, 2014/05/16 13:21:57]

Would the implementation for that then be in a separate file, for example
permission_request_creator_sync.cc? Or should I just put another class in the
same file?

[Bernhard Bauer, 2014/05/16 13:52:36]

No, I think it should be a separate file, because both implementations of the
interface are on a par.

(Which I guess means that the HTTP API implementation should also get its own
file).

[Adrian Kuegel, 2014/05/16 14:57:19]

Done.

[Bernhard Bauer, 2014/05/16 15:22:50]

^^^ Note this part.

Sorry if I was not being clear enough here. I would like to see the following:
* A fully abstract interface PermissionRequestCreator
* An implementation PermissionRequestCreatorApiary that uses an API call over
HTTP (declared in the class header, implemented in the .cc file)
* An implementation PermissionRequestCreatorSync that uploads a
ManagedUserSetting (also declared in the class header, implemented in the .cc
file)

The names are just suggestions; I could also imagine calling the Apiary one
...Impl and the other one ...Legacy, although that won't scale if we should ever
add another implementation :D (See also: (New)+ Tab Page).

[Adrian Kuegel, 2014/05/19 11:00:53]

Done.

+      const std::string& url_requested,
+      const PermissionRequestCallback& callback) = 0;
+};
+
+#endif  // CHROME_BROWSER_MANAGED_MODE_PERMISSION_REQUEST_CREATOR_H_