Move rendering/RenderLayer* to layout/

Move rendering/RenderLayer* to layout/

This CL moves the various rendering/RenderLayer* files into layout/. In most
cases the files were renamed to be Layer*. The one exception is
RenderLayerModelObject was renamed to be LayoutLayerModelObject to signify it
is in the Layout tree.

This CL updates RenderLayerCompositor to be LayerCompositor to match this name
change.

BUG=450612
TBR=jchaffraix@chromium.org, mkwst@chromium.org

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=189529

[dsinclair, 2015-02-03 19:10:45]

dsinclair@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ mkwst@chromium.org, pfeldman@chromium.org

[dsinclair, 2015-02-03 19:10:48]

pfeldman@ for Source/devtools and Source/platform
mkwst@ for Source/web
jchaffraix@ for Source/core

(I'm TBRing the Source/web, Source/core and Source/platform but wasn't 100% sure
on the Source/devtools change)

[Mike West, 2015-02-03 20:22:25]

web/ LGTM.

[pfeldman, 2015-02-04 14:49:32]

devtools lgtm

[yurys, 2015-02-04 14:49:48]

yurys@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ yurys@chromium.org

[yurys, 2015-02-04 14:49:50]

Source/core/inspector/ - lgtm

[dsinclair, 2015-02-04 14:59:34]

New patchsets have been uploaded after l-g-t-m from
mkwst@chromium.org,pfeldman@chromium.org,yurys@chromium.org

[dsinclair, 2015-02-04 15:01:19]

The CQ bit was checked by dsinclair@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-04 15:02:34]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/898783003/20001

[dsinclair, 2015-02-04 15:20:08]

The CQ bit was unchecked by dsinclair@chromium.org

[dsinclair, 2015-02-04 15:25:00]

The CQ bit was checked by dsinclair@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-04 15:25:28]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/898783003/30001

[dsinclair, 2015-02-04 16:50:49]

The CQ bit was unchecked by dsinclair@chromium.org

[dsinclair, 2015-02-04 16:54:44]

The CQ bit was checked by dsinclair@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-04 16:55:07]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/898783003/40001

[dsinclair, 2015-02-04 18:22:10]

The CQ bit was unchecked by dsinclair@chromium.org

[dsinclair, 2015-02-04 18:29:26]

The CQ bit was checked by dsinclair@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-04 18:30:29]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/898783003/60001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-04 20:41:53]

Committed patchset #7 (id:60001) as
https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=189529

[leviw_travelin_and_unemployed, 2015-02-19 00:25:29]

I'm really late to this, but I really don't like the use of overloaded "Layer"
here. I think that makes things a lot more nebulous and less descriptive. At the
risk of sounding like a pain in the butt, can we consider a new name?

[leviw_travelin_and_unemployed, 2015-02-19 00:29:16]

(I also have to mention that while devtools, inspector, and web got LGTMs, no
one l-g-t-m-ed core/layout)

[dsinclair, 2015-02-19 00:53:15]

On 2015/02/19 at 00:29:16, leviw wrote:
> (I also have to mention that while devtools, inspector, and web got LGTMs, no
one l-g-t-m-ed core/layout)

For core I've been TBRing. I actually was TBRing most things in this patch I
just wasnt' sure if the devtools change was correct so got pfeldman to look
first.

Do you have a suggestion for a better name then Layer? Julien discussed it
before hand but this was the best we came up with. LayoutLayer, CompositedLayer,
RenderLayer, none of them are great.  How would you describe it? I'm happy to
clean it up if you can figure out the right paint colour.

[pdr., 2015-02-20 05:02:45]

On 2015/02/19 at 00:53:15, dsinclair wrote:
> On 2015/02/19 at 00:29:16, leviw wrote:
> > (I also have to mention that while devtools, inspector, and web got LGTMs,
no one l-g-t-m-ed core/layout)
> 
> For core I've been TBRing. I actually was TBRing most things in this patch I
just wasnt' sure if the devtools change was correct so got pfeldman to look
first.
> 
> Do you have a suggestion for a better name then Layer? Julien discussed it
before hand but this was the best we came up with. LayoutLayer, CompositedLayer,
RenderLayer, none of them are great.  How would you describe it? I'm happy to
clean it up if you can figure out the right paint colour.

I don't want to slow the layout team's roll, as you all are making great
progress, but could we still get these renames reviewed going forward?

[Julien - ping for review, 2015-02-20 15:57:00]

On 2015/02/20 at 05:02:45, pdr wrote:
> On 2015/02/19 at 00:53:15, dsinclair wrote:
> > On 2015/02/19 at 00:29:16, leviw wrote:
> > > (I also have to mention that while devtools, inspector, and web got LGTMs,
no one l-g-t-m-ed core/layout)
> > 
> > For core I've been TBRing. I actually was TBRing most things in this patch I
just wasnt' sure if the devtools change was correct so got pfeldman to look
first.
> > 
> > Do you have a suggestion for a better name then Layer? Julien discussed it
before hand but this was the best we came up with. LayoutLayer, CompositedLayer,
RenderLayer, none of them are great.  How would you describe it? I'm happy to
clean it up if you can figure out the right paint colour.
> 
> I don't want to slow the layout team's roll, as you all are making great
progress, but could we still get these renames reviewed going forward?

I was on board with this renaming as we exchanged it with Dan (we discuss the
controversial renames). I take responsibility for the bad naming and we will
take steps to alleviate that but I think requiring l-g-t-m won't help to the
extent you would like and will add unreasonable overhead.

[pdr., 2015-02-20 17:48:14]

On 2015/02/20 at 15:57:00, jchaffraix wrote:
> On 2015/02/20 at 05:02:45, pdr wrote:
> > On 2015/02/19 at 00:53:15, dsinclair wrote:
> > > On 2015/02/19 at 00:29:16, leviw wrote:
> > > > (I also have to mention that while devtools, inspector, and web got
LGTMs, no one l-g-t-m-ed core/layout)
> > > 
> > > For core I've been TBRing. I actually was TBRing most things in this patch
I just wasnt' sure if the devtools change was correct so got pfeldman to look
first.
> > > 
> > > Do you have a suggestion for a better name then Layer? Julien discussed it
before hand but this was the best we came up with. LayoutLayer, CompositedLayer,
RenderLayer, none of them are great.  How would you describe it? I'm happy to
clean it up if you can figure out the right paint colour.
> > 
> > I don't want to slow the layout team's roll, as you all are making great
progress, but could we still get these renames reviewed going forward?
> 
> I was on board with this renaming as we exchanged it with Dan (we discuss the
controversial renames). I take responsibility for the bad naming and we will
take steps to alleviate that but I think requiring l-g-t-m won't help to the
extent you would like and will add unreasonable overhead.

You all are making rapid progress through a minefield of bikeshedders and I
support your push for long-term code health. It sounds like these TBRs are
genuinely reviewed so I'm happy. Is there any reason not to make your review
explicit though? Having an LGTM from jchaffraix would have alleviated levi's
concerns that something slipped through the cracks.

[Julien - ping for review, 2015-02-25 18:20:58]

On 2015/02/20 at 17:48:14, pdr wrote:
> On 2015/02/20 at 15:57:00, jchaffraix wrote:
> > On 2015/02/20 at 05:02:45, pdr wrote:
> > > On 2015/02/19 at 00:53:15, dsinclair wrote:
> > > > On 2015/02/19 at 00:29:16, leviw wrote:
> > > > > (I also have to mention that while devtools, inspector, and web got
LGTMs, no one l-g-t-m-ed core/layout)
> > > > 
> > > > For core I've been TBRing. I actually was TBRing most things in this
patch I just wasnt' sure if the devtools change was correct so got pfeldman to
look first.
> > > > 
> > > > Do you have a suggestion for a better name then Layer? Julien discussed
it before hand but this was the best we came up with. LayoutLayer,
CompositedLayer, RenderLayer, none of them are great.  How would you describe
it? I'm happy to clean it up if you can figure out the right paint colour.
> > > 
> > > I don't want to slow the layout team's roll, as you all are making great
progress, but could we still get these renames reviewed going forward?
> > 
> > I was on board with this renaming as we exchanged it with Dan (we discuss
the controversial renames). I take responsibility for the bad naming and we will
take steps to alleviate that but I think requiring l-g-t-m won't help to the
extent you would like and will add unreasonable overhead.
> 
> You all are making rapid progress through a minefield of bikeshedders and I
support your push for long-term code health. It sounds like these TBRs are
genuinely reviewed so I'm happy. Is there any reason not to make your review
explicit though? Having an LGTM from jchaffraix would have alleviated levi's
concerns that something slipped through the cracks.

I don't really review those changes, that's why there was no lgtm here. I trust
Dan to bring up things that are not straight renames so that we can discuss
them. I think that's the best use of people's time but reasonable folks can
disagree. We will bring up the renames to blink-dev from now on so that it
doesn't take people by surprise and we come up with better namings.

[blink-reviews, 2015-02-25 18:41:37]

I don't want to slow down our progress here. I consider the email about the
potentially controversial names to be an adequate mitigation to future
bikeshedders :)

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:20 AM, <jchaffraix@chromium.org> wrote:

> On 2015/02/20 at 17:48:14, pdr wrote:
>
>> On 2015/02/20 at 15:57:00, jchaffraix wrote:
>> > On 2015/02/20 at 05:02:45, pdr wrote:
>> > > On 2015/02/19 at 00:53:15, dsinclair wrote:
>> > > > On 2015/02/19 at 00:29:16, leviw wrote:
>> > > > > (I also have to mention that while devtools, inspector, and web
>> got
>>
> LGTMs, no one l-g-t-m-ed core/layout)
>
>> > > >
>> > > > For core I've been TBRing. I actually was TBRing most things in this
>>
> patch I just wasnt' sure if the devtools change was correct so got
> pfeldman to
> look first.
>
>> > > >
>> > > > Do you have a suggestion for a better name then Layer? Julien
>> discussed
>>
> it before hand but this was the best we came up with. LayoutLayer,
> CompositedLayer, RenderLayer, none of them are great.  How would you
> describe
> it? I'm happy to clean it up if you can figure out the right paint colour.
>
>> > >
>> > > I don't want to slow the layout team's roll, as you all are making
>> great
>>
> progress, but could we still get these renames reviewed going forward?
>
>> >
>> > I was on board with this renaming as we exchanged it with Dan (we
>> discuss
>>
> the controversial renames). I take responsibility for the bad naming and
> we will
> take steps to alleviate that but I think requiring l-g-t-m won't help to
> the
> extent you would like and will add unreasonable overhead.
>
>  You all are making rapid progress through a minefield of bikeshedders and
>> I
>>
> support your push for long-term code health. It sounds like these TBRs are
> genuinely reviewed so I'm happy. Is there any reason not to make your
> review
> explicit though? Having an LGTM from jchaffraix would have alleviated
> levi's
> concerns that something slipped through the cracks.
>
> I don't really review those changes, that's why there was no lgtm here. I
> trust
> Dan to bring up things that are not straight renames so that we can discuss
> them. I think that's the best use of people's time but reasonable folks can
> disagree. We will bring up the renames to blink-dev from now on so that it
> doesn't take people by surprise and we come up with better namings.
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/898783003/
>

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to blink-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.