Define PushMessagingApplicationId and replace ad-hoc code.

content/browser/push_messaging_message_filter.cc

Index: content/browser/push_messaging_message_filter.cc
diff --git a/content/browser/push_messaging_message_filter.cc b/content/browser/push_messaging_message_filter.cc
index f34ffb2ad1fee39745d817a691f06ec54846c72f..3d1cfe95142c157dc7d9326a01a70f1c2de615cd 100644
--- a/content/browser/push_messaging_message_filter.cc
+++ b/content/browser/push_messaging_message_filter.cc
@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
 #include "content/common/push_messaging_messages.h"
 #include "content/public/browser/browser_context.h"
 #include "content/public/browser/browser_thread.h"
+#include "content/public/browser/push_messaging_application_id.h"
 #include "content/public/browser/push_messaging_service.h"
 
 namespace content {
@@ -84,10 +85,10 @@ void PushMessagingMessageFilter::DoRegister(
         PUSH_MESSAGING_STATUS_REGISTRATION_FAILED_SERVICE_NOT_AVAILABLE));
     return;
   }
-  // TODO(mvanouwerkerk): Is this the app_id format we want to use?
-  std::string app_id =
-      origin.spec() + " " + base::Int64ToString(service_worker_registration_id);
-  service()->Register(app_id,
+  PushMessagingApplicationId application_id =
+      PushMessagingApplicationId(origin, service_worker_registration_id);
+  DCHECK(application_id.IsValid());
+  service()->Register(application_id.ToString(),

[jam, 2014/07/23 17:24:47]

it seems that this is the only time where this new struct is used in content.

can we move the struct to chrome, and change the Register method to take the
origin.spec() and service worker id as parameters?

[Michael van Ouwerkerk, 2014/07/24 13:01:35]

Just to clarify: are you suggesting this so we can avoid adding a new type in
the public content API, and to make the unit test setup make more sense?
Assuming that's the reasoning: done.

[jam, 2014/07/24 20:09:42]

to make the content api simpler

                       sender_id,
                       render_process_id_,
                       render_frame_id,