Account reconcilor: Use cookie store cookie changed subscription.

components/signin/core/browser/signin_client.h

Index: components/signin/core/browser/signin_client.h
diff --git a/components/signin/core/browser/signin_client.h b/components/signin/core/browser/signin_client.h
index 7a48a0b284839e77f68f3234c2b57d272acaf5fa..e1e9766521da823576bd0e5c52ce897d2d95826b 100644
--- a/components/signin/core/browser/signin_client.h
+++ b/components/signin/core/browser/signin_client.h
@@ -10,13 +10,14 @@
 #include "base/time/time.h"
 #include "components/keyed_service/core/keyed_service.h"
 #include "components/signin/core/browser/webdata/token_web_data.h"
+#include "net/cookies/cookie_store.h"
+#include "url/gurl.h"
 
 class PrefService;
 class SigninManagerBase;
 class TokenWebData;
 
 namespace net {
-class CanonicalCookie;
 class URLRequestContextGetter;
 }
 
@@ -32,11 +33,11 @@ class ProfileOAuth2TokenServiceIOSProvider;
 // embedder.
 class SigninClient : public KeyedService {
  public:
-  typedef base::Callback<void(const net::CanonicalCookie* cookie)>
-      CookieChangedCallback;
-
-  typedef base::CallbackList<void(const net::CanonicalCookie* cookie)>
-      CookieChangedCallbackList;
+// The subcription for cookie changed notifications.

[droger, 2014/10/31 12:42:01]

Indent.

[msarda, 2014/10/31 13:18:40]

Done.

+  class CookieChangedSubscription {

[droger, 2014/10/31 12:42:01]

Do we need this class?

An alternative to this would be to use directly the concrete implementation, and
use "friend" to mask the implementation details.

I don't have a strong opinion either way.

[msarda, 2014/10/31 13:18:40]

This interface lives in //components. The implementation lives in //chrome. I
think it is clearer to have this class definition here?

[droger, 2014/10/31 13:56:09]

The implementation could be in components too (I know you use content/ but you
could remove it).
Anyway I don't have a strong opinion, I'm fine with this

+   public:
+    virtual ~CookieChangedSubscription() {};

[droger, 2014/10/31 12:42:01]

Should this be pure virtual?

[msarda, 2014/10/31 13:18:40]

I tried this yesterday and it did not build. What would be the benefit for being
pure virtual?

[droger, 2014/10/31 13:56:09]

I thought it would be nice to prevent people to instantiate this class directly
(as this would very likely be a bug).

+  };
 
   ~SigninClient() override {}
 
@@ -70,12 +71,14 @@ class SigninClient : public KeyedService {
   // Signin component is being used.
   virtual std::string GetProductVersion() = 0;
 
-  // Adds or removes a callback that should be called when a cookie changes.
-  // TODO(blundell): Eliminate this interface in favor of having core signin
-  // code observe cookie changes once //chrome/browser/net has been
-  // componentized.
-  virtual scoped_ptr<CookieChangedCallbackList::Subscription>
-      AddCookieChangedCallback(const CookieChangedCallback& callback) = 0;
+  // Adds a callback to be called each time a cookie for |url| with name |name|
+  // changes.
+  // Note that |callback| will always be called on the thread that
+  // |AddCookieChangedCallback| was called on.
+  virtual scoped_ptr<CookieChangedSubscription> AddCookieChangedCallback(
+      const GURL& url,
+      const std::string& name,
+      const net::CookieStore::CookieChangedCallback& callback) = 0;
 
   // Called when Google signin has succeeded.
   virtual void GoogleSigninSucceeded(const std::string& account_id,