Have ResourceBundle own GdkPixbufs.

Have ResourceBundle own GdkPixbufs.

This is the same as how ResourceBundle owns the SkBitmaps it loads.
This should be faster than before because ResourceBundle will only
load each bitmap once and cache the image.

Also fix a memory leak in GdkPixbufFromSkBitmap.

valgrind says we're not leaking here.

BUG=9988

[Dean McNamee, 2009-04-15 19:01:49]

mostly ok...

http://codereview.chromium.org/67179/diff/23/1003
File chrome/browser/gtk/bookmark_bar_gtk.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/67179/diff/23/1003#newcode92
Line 92: folder_icon_ = rb.GetPixbufNamed(IDR_BOOKMARK_BAR_FOLDER);
should these just be statics now in whatever function they're used in?  That's
the model we follow w/ SkBitmap

http://codereview.chromium.org/67179/diff/23/1011
File chrome/common/resource_bundle_linux.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/67179/diff/23/1011#newcode34
Line 34: data.size(), NULL);
should line these up vertically.

http://codereview.chromium.org/67179/diff/23/1011#newcode35
Line 35: DCHECK(ok);
if it's not ok, what should we do?  We've had these cases on Windows with people
modifying theme.dll.  Not sure if we should worry about it.  Since our other
code already has a special case for failure, I think we should go down that
path.

if (!ok) return NULL;

http://codereview.chromium.org/67179/diff/23/1011#newcode45
Line 45: g_object_ref(pixbuf);
why do we use g_object_ref but gdk_pixbuf_unref ?

[tony, 2009-04-15 19:43:33]

http://codereview.chromium.org/67179/diff/23/1003
File chrome/browser/gtk/bookmark_bar_gtk.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/67179/diff/23/1003#newcode92
Line 92: folder_icon_ = rb.GetPixbufNamed(IDR_BOOKMARK_BAR_FOLDER);
On 2009/04/15 19:01:49, Dean McNamee wrote:
> should these just be statics now in whatever function they're used in?  That's
> the model we follow w/ SkBitmap

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/67179/diff/23/1011
File chrome/common/resource_bundle_linux.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/67179/diff/23/1011#newcode34
Line 34: data.size(), NULL);
On 2009/04/15 19:01:49, Dean McNamee wrote:
> should line these up vertically.

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/67179/diff/23/1011#newcode35
Line 35: DCHECK(ok);
On 2009/04/15 19:01:49, Dean McNamee wrote:
> if it's not ok, what should we do?  We've had these cases on Windows with
people
> modifying theme.dll.  Not sure if we should worry about it.  Since our other
> code already has a special case for failure, I think we should go down that
> path.
> 
> if (!ok) return NULL;

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/67179/diff/23/1011#newcode45
Line 45: g_object_ref(pixbuf);
On 2009/04/15 19:01:49, Dean McNamee wrote:
> why do we use g_object_ref but gdk_pixbuf_unref ?

Good point.  It looks like gdk_pixbuf_unref is deprecated.  I changed all
callers with g_object_unref.

[Dean McNamee, 2009-04-15 19:58:17]

LG

http://codereview.chromium.org/67179/diff/42/55
File chrome/common/resource_bundle_linux.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/67179/diff/42/55#newcode36
Line 36: return NULL;
we'll leak the loader, but I guess I'm ok w/ that.  Making a scoped is kinda
overkill.