Touch Events capability negotiation

remoting/host/input_injector.h

 // Copyright (c) 2012 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
 // Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
 // found in the LICENSE file.
 
 #ifndef REMOTING_HOST_INPUT_INJECTOR_H_
 #define REMOTING_HOST_INPUT_INJECTOR_H_
 
 #include "base/memory/ref_counted.h"
 #include "base/memory/scoped_ptr.h"
 #include "remoting/protocol/clipboard_stub.h"
@@ skipping 13 matching lines @@
   // object should do as much work as possible on |main_task_runner|,
   // using |ui_task_runner| only for tasks actually requiring a UI
   // thread.
   static scoped_ptr<InputInjector> Create(
       scoped_refptr<base::SingleThreadTaskRunner> main_task_runner,
       scoped_refptr<base::SingleThreadTaskRunner> ui_task_runner);
 
   // Initialises any objects needed to execute events.
   virtual void Start(
       scoped_ptr<protocol::ClipboardStub> client_clipboard) = 0;
+
+  virtual bool CanInjectTouch() = 0;

[Wez, 2015/04/09 22:58:59]

Add a comment e.g. "Returns true iff the InputInjector implements
InjectTouchPoints()."

[Rintaro Kuroiwa, 2015/04/20 18:20:03]

Done.

+
+ protected:
+  // Most implementations of CanInjectTouch() will call this.
+  static bool DefaultCanInjectTouch();

[Wez, 2015/04/09 22:58:59]

If "most" implementations will call this then why not have ConInjectTouch() have
a default impl that calls it?

What does it actually do, though? Does it return true e.g. iff there is a
platform-specific input injection implementation?

Looking at the InputInjector impls, there doesn't seem to be any value to this
static, since the impls all just call through to the "default" impl implemented
in the same code file? Why not put the implementations in-line?

[Rintaro Kuroiwa, 2015/04/20 18:20:03]

Removed.

 };
 
 }  // namespace remoting
 
 #endif  // REMOTING_HOST_INPUT_INJECTOR_H_