Move view_manager service implementation to //services

Move view_manager service implementation to //services

There's no reason for this to live in //mojo/services, this whole repo
is for mojo.

R=sky@chromium.org

Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/external/mojo/+/9b53c18a3dfd37f35ac0f5d5db377a494e595b38

[jamesr, 2014-12-02 02:01:17]

https://codereview.chromium.org/774473003/diff/1/mojo/shell/view_manager_load...
File mojo/shell/view_manager_loader.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/774473003/diff/1/mojo/shell/view_manager_load...
mojo/shell/view_manager_loader.h:1: // Copyright 2014 The Chromium Authors. All
rights reserved.
is this file dead code?  can I just delete it?

[sky, 2014-12-02 15:47:51]

LGTM

https://codereview.chromium.org/774473003/diff/1/mojo/DEPS
File mojo/DEPS (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/774473003/diff/1/mojo/DEPS#newcode5
mojo/DEPS:5: "+services",
Should this rule be temporary? Maybe marked as such.

https://codereview.chromium.org/774473003/diff/1/mojo/shell/view_manager_load...
File mojo/shell/view_manager_loader.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/774473003/diff/1/mojo/shell/view_manager_load...
mojo/shell/view_manager_loader.h:1: // Copyright 2014 The Chromium Authors. All
rights reserved.
On 2014/12/02 02:01:17, jamesr wrote:
> is this file dead code?  can I just delete it?

I believe so. Go ahead and nuke it.

https://codereview.chromium.org/774473003/diff/1/services/view_manager/access...
File services/view_manager/access_policy.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/774473003/diff/1/services/view_manager/access...
services/view_manager/access_policy.h:11: namespace mojo {
I suspect we should revisit namespaces after this move. I don't think mojo makes
sense anymore here.

[jamesr, 2014-12-02 19:00:20]

On 2014/12/02 15:47:51, sky wrote:
> LGTM
> 
> https://codereview.chromium.org/774473003/diff/1/mojo/DEPS
> File mojo/DEPS (right):
> 
> https://codereview.chromium.org/774473003/diff/1/mojo/DEPS#newcode5
> mojo/DEPS:5: "+services",
> Should this rule be temporary? Maybe marked as such.

It's not temporary - it's a continuation of the (implicit) +mojo/services/ that
existed before.  I don't think there's a particularly strong reason to restrict
things in //mojo/ from depending on various services, and we do in many places
today.

> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/774473003/diff/1/mojo/shell/view_manager_load...
> File mojo/shell/view_manager_loader.h (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/774473003/diff/1/mojo/shell/view_manager_load...
> mojo/shell/view_manager_loader.h:1: // Copyright 2014 The Chromium Authors.
All
> rights reserved.
> On 2014/12/02 02:01:17, jamesr wrote:
> > is this file dead code?  can I just delete it?
> 
> I believe so. Go ahead and nuke it.

Done

> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/774473003/diff/1/services/view_manager/access...
> File services/view_manager/access_policy.h (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/774473003/diff/1/services/view_manager/access...
> services/view_manager/access_policy.h:11: namespace mojo {
> I suspect we should revisit namespaces after this move. I don't think mojo
makes
> sense anymore here.

Yeah - once I finish the moves I'll strip 'mojo' out of the namespaces for
things in //services

[jamesr, 2014-12-02 19:00:55]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1) manually as
9b53c18a3dfd37f35ac0f5d5db377a494e595b38 (presubmit successful).