Introducing the WebServiceWorkerCache.

Source/modules/serviceworkers/CacheStorage.cpp

Index: Source/modules/serviceworkers/CacheStorage.cpp
diff --git a/Source/modules/serviceworkers/CacheStorage.cpp b/Source/modules/serviceworkers/CacheStorage.cpp
index fd1b6bc8ad47f6b80fab75eae7f70ca1aacb8313..f9ed9227427eb75eab4f10f2ca2bd938ecb17f0e 100644
--- a/Source/modules/serviceworkers/CacheStorage.cpp
+++ b/Source/modules/serviceworkers/CacheStorage.cpp
@@ -56,6 +56,11 @@ public:
 
     virtual void onSuccess(WebServiceWorkerCache* cache) OVERRIDE
     {
+        // FIXME: Remove this once content's WebServiceWorkerCache implementation has landed.
+        if (!cache) {
+            m_resolver->reject("not implemented");
+            return;
+        }
         m_resolver->resolve(Cache::fromWebServiceWorkerCache(cache));
         m_resolver.clear();
     }
@@ -63,7 +68,7 @@ public:
     virtual void onError(WebServiceWorkerCacheError* reason) OVERRIDE
     {
         if (*reason == WebServiceWorkerCacheErrorNotFound)
-            m_resolver->resolve();
+            m_resolver->resolve(false);

[jsbell, 2014/09/04 00:28:08]

This makes caches.get("no such cache") resolve with `false` instead of
`undefined` (caught by asanka's tests, BTW). Spec says `undefined` in
https://slightlyoff.github.io/ServiceWorker/spec/service_worker/index.html#ca...
unless I'm reading it wrong.

Is this intentional? Does this callback get used in different contexts where it
needs to return false?

[gavinp, 2014/09/04 19:47:33]

Not intentional. This was merge churn.

         else
             m_resolver->reject(Cache::domExceptionForCacheError(*reason));
         m_resolver.clear();