Removing WebRTC Java API

Removing WebRTC Java API

It's not used any longer.

Was added in https://codereview.chromium.org/551793003/ as temporary solution to use WebRTC from android service.

In following CLs we've moved to native API:
https://codereview.chromium.org/704613003
https://codereview.chromium.org/716433003
https://codereview.chromium.org/719043002
https://codereview.chromium.org/734313002

There is no plan to use Java API for DevTools bridge again.

BUG=383418

[SeRya, 2014-11-30 17:09:20]

serya@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ hellner@chromium.org, kjellander@chromium.org

[SeRya, 2014-11-30 17:09:32]

PTAL

[kjellander_chromium, 2014-12-01 10:39:10]

kjellander@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ perkj@chromium.org

[kjellander_chromium, 2014-12-01 10:39:10]

+perkj as he's been working with this code lately.
Per: Do we have this code covered by a target in WebRTC?

[perkj_webrtc, 2014-12-01 16:46:22]

On 2014/12/01 10:39:10, kjellander wrote:
> +perkj as he's been working with this code lately.
> Per: Do we have this code covered by a target in WebRTC?

This is Chrome's typ copy. No its not used in Chrome.
Lgtm

[hellner1, 2014-12-01 17:14:20]

CL seems OK to me. Not completely clear to me how the bug referenced ties into
this cl though.

[SeRya, 2014-12-03 13:26:55]

On 2014/12/01 17:14:20, hellner1 wrote:
> CL seems OK to me. Not completely clear to me how the bug referenced ties into
> this cl though.

Those targets where added for this issue.

[hellner1, 2014-12-03 16:54:12]

On 2014/12/03 13:26:55, SeRya wrote:
> On 2014/12/01 17:14:20, hellner1 wrote:
> > CL seems OK to me. Not completely clear to me how the bug referenced ties
into
> > this cl though.
> 
> Those targets where added for this issue.

Don't let me hold up the cl as you have an approval already. If you added the
targets for the issue, why are they now removed (I can't discern that from
looking at the bug)? "It's not used any longer." - would be nice to know why it
isn't used any longer.

[SeRya, 2014-12-12 19:56:47]

On 2014/12/03 16:54:12, hellner1 wrote:
> On 2014/12/03 13:26:55, SeRya wrote:
> > On 2014/12/01 17:14:20, hellner1 wrote:
> > > CL seems OK to me. Not completely clear to me how the bug referenced ties
> into
> > > this cl though.
> > 
> > Those targets where added for this issue.
> 
> Don't let me hold up the cl as you have an approval already. If you added the
> targets for the issue, why are they now removed (I can't discern that from
> looking at the bug)? "It's not used any longer." - would be nice to know why
it
> isn't used any longer.

I make the description more informative.

[perkj_chrome, 2014-12-16 08:11:39]

On 2014/12/12 19:56:47, SeRya wrote:
> On 2014/12/03 16:54:12, hellner1 wrote:
> > On 2014/12/03 13:26:55, SeRya wrote:
> > > On 2014/12/01 17:14:20, hellner1 wrote:
> > > > CL seems OK to me. Not completely clear to me how the bug referenced
ties
> > into
> > > > this cl though.
> > > 
> > > Those targets where added for this issue.
> > 
> > Don't let me hold up the cl as you have an approval already. If you added
the
> > targets for the issue, why are they now removed (I can't discern that from
> > looking at the bug)? "It's not used any longer." - would be nice to know why
> it
> > isn't used any longer.
> 
> I make the description more informative.

I am not sure if I am an owner but still lgtm.

[perkj_chrome, 2014-12-16 08:11:59]

The CQ bit was checked by perkj@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-12-16 08:13:01]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/767073002/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-12-16 08:19:58]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-12-16 08:19:59]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  chromium_presubmit on tryserver.chromium.linux
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/chromium_presub...)
  win_chromium_rel_ng on tryserver.chromium.win
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_rel_...)

[kjellander_chromium, 2015-01-26 11:02:41]

Should you attempt a rebase+reland?

[kjellander_chromium, 2015-03-03 08:48:22]

On 2015/01/26 11:02:41, kjellander wrote:
> Should you attempt a rebase+reland?

Ping!

[mnaganov (inactive), 2015-03-04 16:05:32]

On 2015/03/03 08:48:22, kjellander wrote:
> On 2015/01/26 11:02:41, kjellander wrote:
> > Should you attempt a rebase+reland?
> 
> Ping!

Rebased as https://codereview.chromium.org/982563002/