Remove remaining references to CEEE.

Remove remaining references to CEEE.

BUG=107739
TEST=No visible code changes.  Removing constants and code related to CEEE.

Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=115183

[Roger Tawa OOO till Jul 10th, 2011-12-15 18:51:06]

Hi MAD, Joi,

Please take a look.  Not sure if any of these references were left there on
purpose, like the ones that track channels.  Thanks.

[PhistucK, 2011-12-15 18:59:53]

A drive by note - the referenced issue is unrelated to this change list.

[Roger Tawa OOO till Jul 10th, 2011-12-15 19:16:36]

Good catch.  73296 was the svn revision number, not the bug number.  I have
created a bug and fixed the description.  Thanks.

[mad-corp, 2011-12-15 19:45:37]

LGTM with two small comments...

Thanks a lot!

BYE
MAD

http://codereview.chromium.org/8909009/diff/8021/chrome/installer/util/master...
File chrome/installer/util/master_preferences.cc (left):

http://codereview.chromium.org/8909009/diff/8021/chrome/installer/util/master...
chrome/installer/util/master_preferences.cc:229: // exclusive installation of
Chrome and Chrome Frame in addition to supporting
Don't we want to keep the first part of the sentence? Isn't it ceee agnostic? In
doubt, maybe check with Robert Shield?

http://codereview.chromium.org/8909009/diff/8021/chrome_frame/chrome_frame_ac...
File chrome_frame/chrome_frame_activex.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/8909009/diff/8021/chrome_frame/chrome_frame_ac...
chrome_frame/chrome_frame_activex.cc:475: if
(!InitializeAutomation(profile_name, L"",
Did you check if you could simply remove this argument?
Is it used in other cases?

[grt (UTC plus 2), 2011-12-16 04:24:51]

http://codereview.chromium.org/8909009/diff/8021/chrome/installer/util/master...
File chrome/installer/util/master_preferences.cc (left):

http://codereview.chromium.org/8909009/diff/8021/chrome/installer/util/master...
chrome/installer/util/master_preferences.cc:229: // exclusive installation of
Chrome and Chrome Frame in addition to supporting
On 2011/12/15 19:45:37, mad-corp wrote:
> Don't we want to keep the first part of the sentence? Isn't it ceee agnostic?
In
> doubt, maybe check with Robert Shield?

Yes, please keep the first part (up to "...and Chrome Frame").  Thanks for
catching this, MAD.

[Jói, 2011-12-16 11:11:44]

LGTM modulo a nit and the outstanding catch from MAD & grt

http://codereview.chromium.org/8909009/diff/8021/chrome_frame/chrome_tab.cc
File chrome_frame/chrome_tab.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/8909009/diff/8021/chrome_frame/chrome_tab.cc#n...
chrome_frame/chrome_tab.cc:261: // Use this only for the dev channel channel.
channel channel -> channel

[Roger Tawa OOO till Jul 10th, 2011-12-16 16:24:30]

Thanks guys, please take another look.

http://codereview.chromium.org/8909009/diff/8021/chrome/installer/util/master...
File chrome/installer/util/master_preferences.cc (left):

http://codereview.chromium.org/8909009/diff/8021/chrome/installer/util/master...
chrome/installer/util/master_preferences.cc:229: // exclusive installation of
Chrome and Chrome Frame in addition to supporting
On 2011/12/15 19:45:37, mad-corp wrote:
> Don't we want to keep the first part of the sentence? Isn't it ceee agnostic?
In
> doubt, maybe check with Robert Shield?

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/8909009/diff/8021/chrome/installer/util/master...
chrome/installer/util/master_preferences.cc:229: // exclusive installation of
Chrome and Chrome Frame in addition to supporting
On 2011/12/16 04:24:52, grt wrote:
> On 2011/12/15 19:45:37, mad-corp wrote:
> > Don't we want to keep the first part of the sentence? Isn't it ceee
agnostic?
> In
> > doubt, maybe check with Robert Shield?
> 
> Yes, please keep the first part (up to "...and Chrome Frame").  Thanks for
> catching this, MAD.

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/8909009/diff/8021/chrome_frame/chrome_frame_ac...
File chrome_frame/chrome_frame_activex.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/8909009/diff/8021/chrome_frame/chrome_frame_ac...
chrome_frame/chrome_frame_activex.cc:475: if
(!InitializeAutomation(profile_name, L"",
On 2011/12/15 19:45:37, mad-corp wrote:
> Did you check if you could simply remove this argument?
> Is it used in other cases?

Yes it can be removed.  This cascaded down to a few other places, so removed it
from other methods/classes too.  See new files in CL.

http://codereview.chromium.org/8909009/diff/8021/chrome_frame/chrome_tab.cc
File chrome_frame/chrome_tab.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/8909009/diff/8021/chrome_frame/chrome_tab.cc#n...
chrome_frame/chrome_tab.cc:261: // Use this only for the dev channel channel.
On 2011/12/16 11:11:44, Jói wrote:
> channel channel -> channel

Done.

[MAD, 2011-12-16 16:50:44]

Excellent... Thanks for the cleanup...

LGTM still...

BYE
MAD

http://codereview.chromium.org/8909009/diff/20002/chrome_frame/chrome_frame_a...
File chrome_frame/chrome_frame_automation.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/8909009/diff/20002/chrome_frame/chrome_frame_a...
chrome_frame/chrome_frame_automation.h:120: incognito_mode_(incognito),
is_widget_mode_(widget_mode),
You could bring incognito_mode_ up one line, but I won't hold it against you...
:-)

[Jói, 2011-12-16 20:34:25]

LGTM
Thanks Roger!

[grt (UTC plus 2), 2011-12-16 20:52:26]

LGTM

[Roger Tawa OOO till Jul 10th, 2011-12-16 22:39:55]

Thanks guys.  I'll submit once the trybots are happy with the latest patchset.

http://codereview.chromium.org/8909009/diff/20002/chrome_frame/chrome_frame_a...
File chrome_frame/chrome_frame_automation.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/8909009/diff/20002/chrome_frame/chrome_frame_a...
chrome_frame/chrome_frame_automation.h:120: incognito_mode_(incognito),
is_widget_mode_(widget_mode),
On 2011/12/16 16:50:44, MAD wrote:
> You could bring incognito_mode_ up one line, but I won't hold it against
you...
> :-)

Done.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2011-12-19 14:49:18]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/rogerta@chromium.org/8909009/25001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2011-12-19 14:49:31]

Presubmit check for 8909009-25001 failed and returned exit status 1.

Running presubmit commit checks ...

** Presubmit Warnings **
New code should not use wstrings.  If you are calling an API that accepts a
wstring, fix the API.
    chrome_frame/chrome_tab.cc:262

Presubmit checks took 2.4s to calculate.

[Roger Tawa OOO till Jul 10th, 2011-12-19 21:05:08]

Hi guys,

I fixed the wstring error from CQ and uploaded patchset 7.  rietveld says all
files have changed since patchset 6, but that is not the case, but there are 3
new files.  The one set of changes in patchset 7 that are not mine are in
chrome_frame_automation.*, due to a merge after sync.  If you want to take
another look go ahead.  Thanks.

[grt (UTC plus 2), 2011-12-20 03:47:40]

LGTM

[Jói, 2011-12-20 14:17:01]

LGTM

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2011-12-20 19:17:06]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/rogerta@chromium.org/8909009/39003

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2011-12-20 21:22:48]

Change committed as 115183