ServiceWorker: Update the install sequence as per the latest spec

content/common/service_worker/service_worker_types.h

Index: content/common/service_worker/service_worker_types.h
diff --git a/content/common/service_worker/service_worker_types.h b/content/common/service_worker/service_worker_types.h
index 89b0a3a943c3e6976dfd4d53950d0dc5f60b1d68..2ba6126a3602451978922822b28c2d4ca1889b09 100644
--- a/content/common/service_worker/service_worker_types.h
+++ b/content/common/service_worker/service_worker_types.h
@@ -94,6 +94,8 @@ struct ServiceWorkerRegistrationObjectInfo {
 };
 
 struct ServiceWorkerVersionAttributes {
+  ServiceWorkerVersionAttributes();
+  int changed_mask;

[michaeln, 2014/08/29 00:57:57]

the changed_mask seems out of place in this struct? in some of the existing
cases it doesn't apply, i'd vote to keep the mask out of this struct and to pass
it around as a separate value while propagating mutation events.

would it make sense for ServiceWorkerRegistrationObjectInfo to have as a data
member a ServiceWorkerVersionAttributes struct?

[nhiroki, 2014/08/29 08:23:10]

Agree. Reverted the change.
I'm not really sure whether this is useful or not for now because only two
message have SWRegObjectInfo as a member and one of them (ie.
ServiceWorkerMsg_UpdateFound) does not need such version attributes.

I guess getRegistration() may need a new message that has both SWRegObjectInfo
and attributes, so let me revisit when we implement it.

   ServiceWorkerObjectInfo installing;
   ServiceWorkerObjectInfo waiting;
   ServiceWorkerObjectInfo active;