There's a very limited use for configure messages after client
connection. The name is already static after connect anyway, and
the ability to drop capabilities after connect would just complicate the
EIS implementations unnecessary.
Currently only implemented for frame events, the vague plan for the
future is to merely queue the device events internally and "release"
them once a frame event was received, retrofitting the timestamp to the
C event struct (i.e. making ei_event_get_time() available on all device
events).
Meanwhile, the frame event it is.
With passive libei contexts receiving events sent by the EIS
implementation, the type of device changes significantly. While a
relative input device could still send data in logical pixels,
absolute devices may not have that luxury.
Best example here is an external tablet (think: Wacom Intuos): that
tablet has no built-in mapping to a screen and thus cannot capture input
events in logical pixels.
Address this by adding a device type, either virtual or physical.
In terms of functionality, the device's type decides:
- only virtual devices have regions
- only physical devices have a size
The event API remains as-is but the event data not represents either
logical pixels (virtual devices) or mm (physical device).
An EIS implementation connected to a passive libei context would likely
create:
- a virtual relative device (sending deltas in logical pixels)
- one or more physical absolute devices (sending deltas in mm)
Previously, a client could only bind to a capability immediately after
SEAT_ADDED and with a rather awkward API to confirm the capabilities.
Change this to allow for dynamic binding of capabilities, i.e. a client
calls ei_bind_capability() or ei_unbind_capability() whenever it feels
like, causing the respective devices of this capabilty to be added or
removed.
This allows for clients that are temporarily disinterested in a
capability but may require said capability later.
The default function takes one capability, a helper for enable/disable
multiple capabilities in one go is provided as well. On the protocol,
only the "bind" request exists which always represents the currently
wanted set of capabilities.
Note that the helper functions for multiple capabilities require NULL
(not zero) as sentinel, thanks to gcc.
This is a leftover from an earlier implementation that didn't get
removed in time. This extends to a macro that was using the context flag
(rather than the client flag) and in turn caused a bunch of false
positives on the tests.
A libei context can be initialized as active or passive context -
an "active" context sends events, a "passive" context receives events.
The EIS context supports both simultaneously, it is up to the
implementation to disconnect libei clients that it does not want to
suppport.
For example, the xdotool use-case creates an active libei context. The
EIS implementation controls and sets up the devices, but libei
sends the events.
In an input-capturing use-case, the EIS implementation controls
and sets up the devices **and** sends the events. libei is merely the
receiver for any event, it cannot send events. Thus this use-case
requires a passive libei context.
Most of this code is copy/paste with minor modifications - libei already
had the code to send events, libeis had the code to receive events, so
the vast majority of this patch is copying the code into the respective
other library, swap "ei" and "eis" and then apply the various minor
modifications needed to hook into the existing library.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Pass the fd into the original context creation, then write any changes
to the wire immediately. For the capabilities that means we can't build
them up as before anymore, so change the API to have a vararg function
and require the allowed capabilities to be passed in.
There's likely little use for the previous allow-vs-deny policy etc, so
let's not make things more complicated an they have to be.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
There is data that libei and the EIS implementation will want to
exchange that is not covered by the immediate API.
To avoid having to add APIs for all of these, let's provide a generic
property API that both server and client can use to exchange this info.
The property API provides read/write/delete permissions but those only
apply to the client, not the server. The idea is that a server can
create (or restrict) properties that the client can read but not modify
and/or delete. A special-case are properties filled in automatically by
libei: ei.application.pid and ei.application.cmdline. These could be
used by e.g. the portal implementation to match permissions.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
This allows us to transmit extra information about the client before the
server has to decide on whether it wants to connect us.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
This effectively provides the EIS implementation with a notification
that the client will actually send events in the near future. To be used
by e.g. synergy-like clients when the pointer enters the logical screen
so that the EIS implementation can flash a warning or something.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
This allows a client to trigger kinetic scrolling (or prevent it).
For compositors implementing EIS, the only realistic scroll source is
continuous which allows for scroll stop events. So let's give the client
the opportunity to trigger those on demand.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Already present in e.g. libinput and wayland, this event allows us to
group several events together to denote them as a logical group.
Required for multi-touch but as we've learned with Wayland it's also
required to group other events (scroll events in the case of Wayland).
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Since the server controls the keymap, and that keymap is likely merged
with some other device let's add the events so we notify the client of
things like numlock-is-down etc.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
There's nothing in the protocol to modify the client device state from
the server, so a pause/resume cycle must leave the client with the
same(-ish) state. Pause is really just that, a short "no event now
please". Anything that would require e.g. modifying the device state by
releasing keys or buttons should result in the device being removed and
re-added.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
All of this is always the same steps, let's use a macro so we can limit
our code to the bits we actually need to do.
This requires renaming some of the protocol itself to match up with the
expectations - not the worst thing since it makes the protocol more
consistent.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
This keeps most of the current structure but gets rid of client-side
keymaps (which have been broken since the server-side devices anyway).
The new approach: clients get a keymap (or NULL) from the server, if
they don't like it they will have to do transformation on their side.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
This isn't something that libei itself uses but clients like synergy
need to know about this to be able to map relative pointer motion from
one host into the right physical pixel on another host.
This is required for mutter in the x11-compat mode where a 4k screen is
logically twice the size of a 2k screen, despite having the same
physical size.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
This is required for supporting synergy/barrier and similar clients.
Replacing the touch and pointer range we now have server-defined
rectangular regions that specify the active zones for this device.
For example, a dual-monitor EIS server would create two touch devices
with one region each for the respective monitors - libei-generated
touches would thus fall on the right area of the monitor. Or just one
device with one region if the second screen should be inaccessible.
A relative device may have multiple regions since it can reach all
screens in the layout.
This leaks the screen layout to libei but that is necessary for the
functionality to work. A libei client may need to control devices
through absolute coordinates and it needs to know where screen
transitions from one to the next screen happen:
+-----------++----------------+
| || |
| B||Q |
| |+----------------+
| |
| A|P
+-----------+
In the above example, position P is unreachable and a client that
controls input on both screens must know that it cannot transition from
A to P but it can transition from B to Q.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
This changes the protocol so that it is the EIS implementation that
creates devices within a seat.
A client now "binds" to a seat and the EIS implementation creates
devices matching the requested capabilities. A client can close a device
if it no longer wants those but otherwise everything (including pointer
ranges) is handled by the server.
This is one giant patch because changes at the protocol level cannot
easily be broken out into smaller patches. Some FIXMEs are left which
will be handled in follow-up patches, e.g. the keymap handling is
basically broken right now.
Fixes#7
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
After CONNECT, the EIS implementation needs to add one or more seats. The
libei client can only create devices within those seats. This mirrors the
wayland hierarchy as well as the X.Org one.
The seat has a set of allowed capabilities, so the client knows ahead of time
when it may not be possible to create a specific device.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Client-side the approach is a managed touch object rather than passing the
touchid around. This is intentional, it allows for a stackable API in the
future if we need to add things like pressure or major/minor to it.
On the server side the touches are managed through the event object anyway, so
we don't need the same abstraction there.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
This was already spelled out in the documentation but just not yet
implemented. New starting state for any device added by EIS is "suspended",
the server needs to explicitly resume it before events are accepted.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Original idea of 1/1000 of a pixel was to allow subpixels while sending fixed
width down the wire. Let's not care about that and use doubles instead.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
The protocol itself could work like originally described here but there's a
stumbling block: the decision on whether to accept a device is made by the
caller through EIS_EVENT_DEVICE_ADDED and the following eis_device_connect()
call. We cannot process any events from that device until that call is
complete and that effectively disallows batch submission of requests.
To allow batching we'd have to pause the protocol but that means missing out
on other devices (and their events) and disconnect events. The alternative to
that would be for libeis to peek at incoming requests and sort them by device
ID so we only pause one device's stream but now we're also mangling the device
event order and potentially triggering all sorts of side-effects.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
For the Portal case, we'll have the portal open the sockets for us and then
(depending on policy) restrict what the client can do. Then the socket can be
passed to the client with e.g. keyboards disabled and the client is none the
wiser (other than that the server will reject any keyboard caps).
Since the portal doesn't need a EI context, the configuration is a separate
small library.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
The main purpose of that was for (plain-text protocol) debugging. With the
current intentions to "preload" a connection with restrictions, having the
server initiate a connection is not useful.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
protobuf relies on external framing and exact buffer lengths to parse things
correctly. So let's provide that by sending a fixed-length Frame message
before every real message.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Plain-text was useful for the initial implementation where the counterpart was
netcat but now that both parts are in place, protobuf is a much more
convenient system to handle a frequently-changing protocol.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
