Pass through geofencing API calls to the content layer.

public/platform/WebCircularGeofencingRegion.h

Index: public/platform/WebCircularGeofencingRegion.h
diff --git a/public/platform/WebCircularGeofencingRegion.h b/public/platform/WebCircularGeofencingRegion.h
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d3c4ac880a708861d0f5e1e4507a735744a4d0cc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/public/platform/WebCircularGeofencingRegion.h
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+// 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 WebCircularGeofencingRegion_h
+#define WebCircularGeofencingRegion_h
+
+#include "WebCommon.h"
+#include "WebString.h"
+
+namespace blink {
+
+struct WebCircularGeofencingRegion {
+    WebString id;

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2014/09/04 11:14:54]

i wouldn't put the ID in the region (the IDL doesn't have it either). Also, e.g.
the remove call only takes the ID but not the rest of the region, so it strikes
me as two separate concepts.

[Marijn Kruisselbrink, 2014/09/04 17:44:19]

The IDL does have the ID in the region. In fact this (should the ID be part of
the region or not) was exactly one of the questions I raised the several times I
send out draft specs and IDL files to blink-dev and other lists. Since nobody
ever commented on that particular part of my draft spec I didn't change it. Some
things would definitely be easier if the ID would not be part of the region, but
it would require changing several other parts of the API as well (for one
getRegisteredRegions would now need to return a map instead of a list).
Also I'm not sure if a code review is the best place to discuss API details like
this. API discussions already get fragmented enough between blink-dev, w3c
working groups and private email, without introducing yet another medium.

(but yes, not having a string in WebCircularGeofencingRegion would be somewhat
tempting purely from an implementation point of view, but I think it's wrong to
base decisions for the public API purely on what is marginally easier to
implement)

Having said that, I do agree that it might make the API clearer to pass the ID
separately, but so far in the several months of discussing this API nobody has
ever seemed to agree with that/have an opinion on that...

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2014/09/05 14:08:29]

I'm sorry, I guess I should first read up on this a bit more.

[Marijn Kruisselbrink, 2014/09/05 18:32:09]

I now changed the blink<->content API to not have the ID as part of the region,
since it does seem to make more sense to have it separate. For now I've left the
web-exposed API alone.

+    double latitude;
+    double longitude;
+    double radius;
+
+    WebCircularGeofencingRegion()
+        : latitude(0)
+        , longitude(0)
+        , radius(0)
+    {
+    }
+};
+
+} // namespace blink
+
+#endif // WebCircularGeofencingRegion_h