bindings: Removes unnecessary Event-related code.

bindings: Removes unnecessary Event-related code.

Removes unused ModuleProxy, EventInterfaces.h, etc.

BUG=235436
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=181657

[Yuki, 2014-09-08 15:20:33]

yukishiino@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ haraken@chromium.org

[Yuki, 2014-09-08 15:20:34]

Could you review this CL?

[haraken, 2014-09-08 15:31:46]

haraken@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ tasak@google.com

[haraken, 2014-09-08 15:31:47]

LGTM

tasak@: Are you fine with removing ModuleProxy in this CL? (I guess you'll need
it when you split partial interfaces between core/ and modules/... Of course you
can re-add it when you need it.)

[tasak, 2014-09-09 02:14:10]

On 2014/09/08 15:31:47, haraken wrote:
> LGTM
> 
> tasak@: Are you fine with removing ModuleProxy in this CL? (I guess you'll
need
> it when you split partial interfaces between core/ and modules/... Of course
you
> can re-add it when you need it.)

Yeah. If this cl removes, I need to re-add ModuleProxy for partial interface
modularization.

However, I'm just curious. So this cl considers IDBPendingTransactionMonitor?
i.e.

-    // Indexed DB requires that transactions are created with an internal
|active| flag
-    // set to true, but the flag becomes false when control returns to the
event loop.
-   
IDBPendingTransactionMonitor::from(executionContext).deactivateNewTransactions();

I just checked raw patch by using Ctrl-F. However, I didn't find any code which
takes care of IDBPendingTransactionMonitor.

[haraken, 2014-09-09 02:35:58]

On 2014/09/09 02:14:10, tasak wrote:
> On 2014/09/08 15:31:47, haraken wrote:
> > LGTM
> > 
> > tasak@: Are you fine with removing ModuleProxy in this CL? (I guess you'll
> need
> > it when you split partial interfaces between core/ and modules/... Of course
> you
> > can re-add it when you need it.)
> 
> Yeah. If this cl removes, I need to re-add ModuleProxy for partial interface
> modularization.
> 
> However, I'm just curious. So this cl considers IDBPendingTransactionMonitor?
> i.e.
> 
> -    // Indexed DB requires that transactions are created with an internal
> |active| flag
> -    // set to true, but the flag becomes false when control returns to the
> event loop.
> -   
>
IDBPendingTransactionMonitor::from(executionContext).deactivateNewTransactions();
> 
> I just checked raw patch by using Ctrl-F. However, I didn't find any code
which
> takes care of IDBPendingTransactionMonitor.

Nice catch! We need the IDBPendingTransactionMonitor code.

[haraken, 2014-09-09 02:36:33]

On 2014/09/09 02:35:58, haraken wrote:
> On 2014/09/09 02:14:10, tasak wrote:
> > On 2014/09/08 15:31:47, haraken wrote:
> > > LGTM
> > > 
> > > tasak@: Are you fine with removing ModuleProxy in this CL? (I guess you'll
> > need
> > > it when you split partial interfaces between core/ and modules/... Of
course
> > you
> > > can re-add it when you need it.)
> > 
> > Yeah. If this cl removes, I need to re-add ModuleProxy for partial interface
> > modularization.
> > 
> > However, I'm just curious. So this cl considers
IDBPendingTransactionMonitor?
> > i.e.
> > 
> > -    // Indexed DB requires that transactions are created with an internal
> > |active| flag
> > -    // set to true, but the flag becomes false when control returns to the
> > event loop.
> > -   
> >
>
IDBPendingTransactionMonitor::from(executionContext).deactivateNewTransactions();
> > 
> > I just checked raw patch by using Ctrl-F. However, I didn't find any code
> which
> > takes care of IDBPendingTransactionMonitor.
> 
> Nice catch! We need the IDBPendingTransactionMonitor code.

I think we already have a test case about this in layout tests.

[Yuki, 2014-09-09 08:36:27]

I've resurrected ModuleProxy and ModuleBindingsInitializer.
Could you take another look?

[haraken, 2014-09-09 09:03:47]

LGTM

[tasak, 2014-09-09 09:46:37]

lgtm

[Yuki, 2014-09-09 13:56:44]

It turned out that we cannot simply remove [Custom=ToV8] at this moment, so let
me add V8EventTargetCustom.cpp and related code back for now.

Could you take yet another look just in case?

[haraken, 2014-09-09 14:15:33]

Still LGTM

[Yuki, 2014-09-09 16:12:49]

The CQ bit was checked by yukishiino@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-09-09 16:13:18]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/yukishiino@chromium.org/551003002/120001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-09-09 16:16:57]

Committed patchset #7 (id:120001) as 181657