ServiceWorker: add ServiceWorkerClients.claim() support (2/3).

content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_provider_host.h

Index: content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_provider_host.h
diff --git a/content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_provider_host.h b/content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_provider_host.h
index 9123014273d400004148f897a6ed999799677d5b..29f73aa5fd9db19a37c89ae6d45a32c10a5f5b67 100644
--- a/content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_provider_host.h
+++ b/content/browser/service_worker/service_worker_provider_host.h
@@ -95,7 +95,8 @@ class CONTENT_EXPORT ServiceWorkerProviderHost
   const GURL& topmost_frame_url() const { return topmost_frame_url_; }
 
   // Associates to |registration| to listen for its version change events.
-  void AssociateRegistration(ServiceWorkerRegistration* registration);
+  void AssociateRegistration(ServiceWorkerRegistration* registration,
+                             bool should_notify_controller_change = false);

[michaeln, 2015/01/28 00:55:13]

This flag seems odd? Also it shouldn't have a default value per the style guide.

[xiang, 2015/01/28 05:38:35]

Done.

 
   // Clears the associated registration and stop listening to it.
   void DisassociateRegistration();
@@ -140,6 +141,9 @@ class CONTENT_EXPORT ServiceWorkerProviderHost
   // Asks the renderer to send back the document information.
   void GetClientInfo(int embedded_worker_id, int request_id);
 
+  // Starts using the |registration|.
+  void SetController(ServiceWorkerRegistration* registration);

[falken, 2015/01/26 08:45:13]

This API gets a bit confusing: this function is a lot like
AssociateRegistration. Is it possible to fold them into one have better naming
to make clear which one does what?

[falken, 2015/01/26 08:45:41]

I meant to write: fold them into one OR have better naming

[michaeln, 2015/01/28 00:55:13]

Agreed, please don't use SetController() as the name here.

OnClaimedByNewVersion(reg) would be in keeping with how the similar
OnSkippedWaiting(reg) is handled. Maybe this could be broken into two parts.

- first rejigger the associated registrations
- then notify them of the being claimed by a new version

That would be even more in keeping with how the similar skipped waiting is
handled. Might help get rid of that odd flag too?

+
   // Adds reference of this host's process to the |pattern|, the reference will
   // be removed in destructor.
   void AddScopedProcessReferenceToPattern(const GURL& pattern);
@@ -169,7 +173,8 @@ class CONTENT_EXPORT ServiceWorkerProviderHost
 
   // Sets the controller version field to |version| or if |version| is NULL,
   // clears the field.
-  void SetControllerVersionAttribute(ServiceWorkerVersion* version);
+  void SetControllerVersionAttribute(ServiceWorkerVersion* version,
+                                     bool should_notify_controller_change);
 
   void SendAssociateRegistrationMessage();