[Android] Fix smart clip callback to include URI and title

[Android] Fix smart clip callback to include URI and title

TEST=passed ContentViewTest
BUG=388961
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=282219

[Yaron, 2014-07-09 02:24:26]

https://codereview.chromium.org/372693003/diff/40002/content/public/android/j...
File
content/public/android/java/src/org/chromium/content/browser/ContentView.java
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/372693003/diff/40002/content/public/android/j...
content/public/android/java/src/org/chromium/content/browser/ContentView.java:31:
private static final String TAG = ContentView.class.getSimpleName();
"ContentView". There was a long discussion about this, but suffice it to say,
simple literal is the way to go :)

https://codereview.chromium.org/372693003/diff/40002/content/public/android/j...
content/public/android/java/src/org/chromium/content/browser/ContentView.java:290:
* You should not remove it even when there is no caller in the code base.
This seems... terrible. I'm not picking on you, but I really don't like this
solution. Does this mean that we could never change the ContentView class? Maybe
we should discuss via chat / higher bandwidth comm

[Changwan Ryu, 2014-07-09 03:33:37]

https://codereview.chromium.org/372693003/diff/40002/content/public/android/j...
File
content/public/android/java/src/org/chromium/content/browser/ContentView.java
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/372693003/diff/40002/content/public/android/j...
content/public/android/java/src/org/chromium/content/browser/ContentView.java:31:
private static final String TAG = ContentView.class.getSimpleName();
On 2014/07/09 02:24:25, Yaron wrote:
> "ContentView". There was a long discussion about this, but suffice it to say,
> simple literal is the way to go :)

God it. Good to know!

https://codereview.chromium.org/372693003/diff/40002/content/public/android/j...
content/public/android/java/src/org/chromium/content/browser/ContentView.java:290:
* You should not remove it even when there is no caller in the code base.
On 2014/07/09 02:24:25, Yaron wrote:
> This seems... terrible. I'm not picking on you, but I really don't like this
> solution. Does this mean that we could never change the ContentView class?
Maybe
> we should discuss via chat / higher bandwidth comm
You're right. I don't think it makes sense to have restriction on package name
and class name. Probably OEMs can check for method signature instead of class
signature. Also, I've switched to Handler approach to avoid type casting /
checking from callback. Anyways, let's talk about it in VC.

[Changwan Ryu, 2014-07-09 06:04:02]

Hi Yaron,

I've refactored the methods to implement an interface as we talked offline.

PTAL

[Yaron, 2014-07-09 22:59:40]

lgtm

[Changwan Ryu, 2014-07-09 23:07:23]

The CQ bit was checked by changwan@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-09 23:11:37]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/changwan@chromium.org/372693003/170001

[Changwan Ryu, 2014-07-10 01:02:01]

adding sievers for approval on web_contents/

[no sievers, 2014-07-10 01:06:42]

On 2014/07/10 01:02:01, Changwan Ryu wrote:
> adding sievers for approval on web_contents/

lgtm

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-10 02:32:24]

Change committed as 282219