Hook up API to notification_ui_manager.

chrome/browser/extensions/api/notification/notification_api.h

Index: chrome/browser/extensions/api/notification/notification_api.h
diff --git a/chrome/browser/extensions/api/notification/notification_api.h b/chrome/browser/extensions/api/notification/notification_api.h
index 520eb0e648ffc7bb92878fdd3fb2dc0c2576ba2f..9523d2c6e27da21bc237b0a6b2af10f866a6805e 100644
--- a/chrome/browser/extensions/api/notification/notification_api.h
+++ b/chrome/browser/extensions/api/notification/notification_api.h
@@ -15,22 +15,24 @@
 
 namespace extensions {
 
-class NotificationShowFunction : public AsyncApiFunction {
+class ApiResourceEventNotifier;
+
+class NotificationShowFunction : public ApiFunction {
  public:
-  DECLARE_EXTENSION_FUNCTION_NAME("notification.show")
+  DECLARE_EXTENSION_FUNCTION_NAME("experimental.notification.show")

[asargent_no_longer_on_chrome, 2012/10/15 19:26:25]

style nit: I think we usually put the DECLARE_EXTENSION_FUNCTION_NAME macro at
the bottom of the class. Consider slavish adherence to this convention.

 
   NotificationShowFunction();
 
-  // AsyncApiFunction:
-  virtual bool Prepare() OVERRIDE;
-  virtual void Work() OVERRIDE;
-  virtual bool Respond() OVERRIDE;
+  // UIThreadExtensionFunction:

[dharcourt, 2012/10/12 22:38:50]

For my education: Both the ApiFunction superclass and the
UIThreadExtensionFunction class in the comment have a RunImpl() method, but I
can't see how the two are tied together so that this would be an override of the
UIThreadExtensionFunction RunImpl() rather than the ApiFunction one. How are
they associated?

[miket_OOO, 2012/10/15 17:13:11]

I think you're asking a general C++ question, but in the chance I'm
misinterpreting and you've actually pointed out a bug, please read with a
skeptical eye.

The virtual keyword indicates that the decision which version the overridden
function to call is made at runtime depending on which class the object actually
is. So in this case, if it's an ApiFunction object, it'll call the ApiFunction's
implementation of that method.

It's worth pointing out that ApiFunction doesn't implement that method, so if a
derived class doesn't implement it either, it'll go up the class hierarchy until
it finds an implementation (if it were a pure virtual, meaning the base class
specified that it must be implemented, then it wouldn't have compiled). This is
in contrast to your "the ApiFunction superclass ... [has] a RunImpl() method,"
which isn't the case.

Does this answer your question?

+  virtual bool RunImpl() OVERRIDE;
 
  protected:
   virtual ~NotificationShowFunction();
 
  private:
   scoped_ptr<api::experimental_notification::Show::Params> params_;
+  int src_id_;
+  ApiResourceEventNotifier* event_notifier_;
 };
 
 }  // namespace extensions