Improving the process model extension API

chrome/browser/extensions/extension_event_router.cc

Index: chrome/browser/extensions/extension_event_router.cc
diff --git a/chrome/browser/extensions/extension_event_router.cc b/chrome/browser/extensions/extension_event_router.cc
index 0b957df105e5dda66627ed0d1aa6ffd1a9a4f785..af1a90e11670bc8569a6d55300cb3bd5cceaae60 100644
--- a/chrome/browser/extensions/extension_event_router.cc
+++ b/chrome/browser/extensions/extension_event_router.cc
@@ -132,7 +132,9 @@ void ExtensionEventRouter::AddEventListener(
 
   // We lazily tell the TaskManager to start updating when listeners to the
   // processes.onUpdated event arrive.

[Charlie Reis, 2012/04/23 22:19:51]

nit: Update comment here and below.  We might consider a helper function for
this to avoid bugs if someone changes one but not the other.

[nasko, 2012/04/24 18:14:29]

I don't think it is worthwhile adding a helper function now for this. If the
extension subsystem allows us easy testing for listeners in the future (bug
124804 filed), then this can even be removed.

-  if (event_name.compare(extension_processes_api_constants::kOnUpdated) == 0)
+  if (event_name.compare(extension_processes_api_constants::kOnUpdated) == 0 ||
+      event_name.compare(
+          extension_processes_api_constants::kOnUpdatedWithMemory) == 0)
     ExtensionProcessesEventRouter::GetInstance()->ListenerAdded();
 }
 
@@ -154,7 +156,9 @@ void ExtensionEventRouter::RemoveEventListener(
 
   // If a processes.onUpdated event listener is removed (or a process with one
   // exits), then we let the TaskManager know that it has one fewer listener.
-  if (event_name.compare(extension_processes_api_constants::kOnUpdated) == 0)
+  if (event_name.compare(extension_processes_api_constants::kOnUpdated) == 0 ||
+      event_name.compare(
+          extension_processes_api_constants::kOnUpdatedWithMemory) == 0)
     ExtensionProcessesEventRouter::GetInstance()->ListenerRemoved();
 
   BrowserThread::PostTask(