Revert of IDL: Properly support [Exposed] on static methods

Revert of IDL: Properly support [Exposed] on static methods (patchset #2 id:20001 of https://codereview.chromium.org/793243004/)

Reason for revert:
seems to be causing compile failures: http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.webkit/builders/WebKit%20Mac%20Builder%20%28dbg%29/builds/101401/steps/compile/logs/stdio

Original issue's description:
> IDL: Properly support [Exposed] on static methods
> 
> They were conditionally installed as indicated by the [Exposed] attribute,
> but they were installed on the prototype object rather than on the
> interface object.
> 
> A static method with [Exposed] fulfills the requirements for being treated
> both as a conditionally enabled method (because of [Exposed]) and a method
> with custom registration (because of being static), and due to the order
> in which those requirements were checked, it ended up being treated as a
> conditionally enabled method, only.
> 
> Fix by giving custom registration priority and by adding the same
> condition filters around that registration code, so that such methods can
> still also be all sorts of conditionally enabled.
> 
> BUG=434741
> 
> Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=187161

TBR=haraken@chromium.org,jl@opera.com
NOTREECHECKS=true
NOTRY=true
BUG=434741
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=187182

[samuong, 2014-12-15 21:40:36]

Created Revert of IDL: Properly support [Exposed] on static methods

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-12-15 21:41:44]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/806773006/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-12-15 21:42:29]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1) as
https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=187182

[haraken, 2014-12-15 23:44:23]

LGTM

[Jens Widell, 2014-12-16 06:11:07]

Failure caused by https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=313077 I
guess. Unlikely this patch made a difference.

I can't revert this revert; I guess I can only revert my own CLs as a
non-@chromium.org user.

[haraken, 2014-12-16 06:20:01]

On 2014/12/16 06:11:07, Jens Widell wrote:
> Failure caused by https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=313077 I
> guess. Unlikely this patch made a difference.
> 
> I can't revert this revert; I guess I can only revert my own CLs as a
> mailto:non-@chromium.org user.

I'll do the revert of the revert.

[haraken, 2014-12-16 06:21:25]

On 2014/12/16 06:20:01, haraken wrote:
> On 2014/12/16 06:11:07, Jens Widell wrote:
> > Failure caused by https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=313077
I
> > guess. Unlikely this patch made a difference.
> > 
> > I can't revert this revert; I guess I can only revert my own CLs as a
> > mailto:non-@chromium.org user.
> 
> I'll do the revert of the revert.

Done in r187228.

[Jens Widell, 2014-12-16 06:22:16]

On 2014/12/16 06:21:25, haraken wrote:
> On 2014/12/16 06:20:01, haraken wrote:
> > On 2014/12/16 06:11:07, Jens Widell wrote:
> > > Failure caused by
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=313077
> I
> > > guess. Unlikely this patch made a difference.
> > > 
> > > I can't revert this revert; I guess I can only revert my own CLs as a
> > > mailto:non-@chromium.org user.
> > 
> > I'll do the revert of the revert.
> 
> Done in r187228.

Thanks!