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>
