Implement a module system for the extension bindings JS.

chrome/renderer/resources/extensions/browser_action_custom_bindings.js

Index: chrome/renderer/resources/extensions/browser_action_custom_bindings.js
diff --git a/chrome/renderer/resources/extensions/browser_action_custom_bindings.js b/chrome/renderer/resources/extensions/browser_action_custom_bindings.js
index 47cb684b25b49a2209942761e272214616f0e8ea..feed1690a923841bb939f994cc0318be762b6bab 100644
--- a/chrome/renderer/resources/extensions/browser_action_custom_bindings.js
+++ b/chrome/renderer/resources/extensions/browser_action_custom_bindings.js
@@ -4,9 +4,7 @@
 
 // Custom bindings for the browserAction API.
 
-(function() {
-
-native function GetChromeHidden();
+var GetChromeHidden = natives.GetChromeHidden;

[Aaron Boodman, 2012/02/16 01:54:42]

I'm still not crazy about the magical names. Did you try my suggestion of
wrapping in a function?

[koz (OOO until 15th September), 2012/02/27 01:06:14]

No - wrapping it in a function would definitely work, but I think it's just
extra boilerplate and an extra source of potential bugs. I think it's okay to
have these variables just appear in scope here - almost all JS environments
execute JS in a context where extra variables are available (eg: JS on the web,
JS in extensions, node) and they wouldn't be improved by requiring developers to
enumerate those variables as parameters in an anonymous function.

[Aaron Boodman, 2012/02/28 02:42:59]

OK, I see your point of view.

 
 GetChromeHidden().registerCustomHook('browserAction', function(bindingsAPI) {
   var apiFunctions = bindingsAPI.apiFunctions;
@@ -16,5 +14,3 @@ GetChromeHidden().registerCustomHook('browserAction', function(bindingsAPI) {
     setIcon(details, this.name, this.definition.parameters, 'browser action');
   });
 });
-
-})();