Hi Marcel and Luiz,
On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 12:23 AM Von Dentz, Luiz
<luiz.von.dentz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Miao, Marcel,
>
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 12:47 AM Marcel Holtmann <marcel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > +Properties uint8 FilterType [read-only]
>> > +
>> > + This can be the following values. More will be added.
>> > + 0x01 - Patterns with OR logic relation
>
>
> We already have Filter in interface name so I guess we can go with just Type.
Sounds good to me.
>
>>
>> > + (Int16, Uint16, Int16, Uint16) RSSIThreshholdsAndTimers [read-only, optional]
>> > +
>> > + The contains HighRSSIThreshold, HighRSSIThresholdTimer,
>> > + LowRSSIThreshold, LowRSSIThresholdTimer in order. The
>> > + unit of HighRSSIThreshold and LowRSSIThreshold is dBm.
>> > + The unit of HighRSSIThresholdTimer and
>> > + LowRSSIThresholdTimer is second.
>> > +
>> > + A device is considered in-range when the RSSIs of the
>> > + received advertisement(s) during HighRSSIThresholdTimer
>> > + seconds exceed HighRSSIThreshold. Likewise, a device is
>> > + considered out-of-range when the RSSIs of the received
>> > + advertisement(s) during LowRSSIThresholdTimer do not
>> > + reach LowRSSIThreshold.
>> > +
>> > + array{(uint8, uint8, string)} Patterns [read-only, optional]
>> > +
>> > + If “PatternsWithORLogicRelation” is supported, this must
>> > + exist and has at least one entry in the array.
>> > +
>> > + The structure of a pattern contains the following.
>> > + uint8 start_position
>> > + The index in an AD data field where the search
>> > + should start. The beginning of an AD data field
>> > + is index 0.
>> > + uint8 AD_data_type
>> > + See https://www.bluetooth.com/specifications/
>> > + assigned-numbers/generic-access-profile/ for
>> > + the possible allowed value.
>> > + string content_of_pattern
>> > + This is the value of the pattern.
>>
>> This part I would provide as dict to the RegisterMonitor method (see below).
>>
>> > +
>> > +Advertisement Monitor hierarchy
>> > +===============================
>> > +Service org.bluez
>> > +Interface org.bluez.AdvertisementMonitor1
>> > +Object path /org/bluez/{hci0,hci1,...}
>>
>> If we follow our current style then it would be org.bluez.AdvertismentMonitorManager.
>>
>> While writing this email so far, I am kinda tempted to call it org.bluez.DeviceMonitorManager and org.bluez.DeviceMonitor. It is just a temptation at this point and it is good to sleep about it for a bit.
>>
>> > +
>> > +Methods void RegisterApplication(object filter)
>> > +
>> > + This registers a job of monitoring advertisement in a
>> > + power efficient way. Based on the content of the filter
>> > + upon registration, the filter object can expect to
>> > + receive the matched advertisements via DeviceInRange()
>> > + and AdvertisementReceived().
>>
>> RegisterMonitor(object monitor, dict thresholds, dict filter)
>>
>> Having the thresholds and the filters as dicts here make it clear that you have to destroy the monitor and create a new one of you want to change them. I think that is acceptable and in the end an easy task, since you still can reuse the object monitor that you have already set up. It also make the code for bluetoothd simpler since it doesn’t have to track life changes to the filters and act on them.
>
>
> Actually I rather not do this since there could multiple filters being registered not just a single object, if is quite a pain if we would need to build an array that matches the listing of ObjectManagers which might get very tricky for the client to do properly since some of them actually use a hash table for the objects which may reorder them, with our dbus client is not that difficult to update the filters if they change so Id just let the client change while registered so we don't have to unregister/register the whole object tree if there are updates.
My understanding here is that only one monitor (this is in fact a
filter - which we have been using from the very beginning, and Marcel
suggested to rename it to monitor) can be registered via
RegisterMonitor at a time, and there can be multiple filtering
conditions (such as UUID and other AD data type) within a monitor
depending on the type of the monitor.
My concern with providing filtering conditions as a dictionary is that
it cannot be extended to adopt logical relation among filter
conditions later. For simplicity, we probably don't want to allow an
application to update filter and expect the changes would be reflected
right away (once HCI vendor extensions are in place, this can be
expensive), so we honor whatever filtering conditions read from the
monitor upon RegisterMonitor().
>
>>
>>
>> > +
>> > + void UnregisterApplication(filter object)
>> > +
>> > + This unregisters the job of monitoring advertisement.
>> > + The filter object can expect to be called on Release()
>> > + once the removal is done.
>> > +
>> > + void UnregisterAllApplications()
>> > +
>> > + This unregisters all jobs of monitoring advertisement.
>> > + All filter objects can expect to be called on Release()
>> > + once the removals are done.
>>
>> I would rather not have an UnregisterAll. We didn’t need it until now and the object monitor was always bound to the lifetime of the application.
>
>
> Actually we just need one method with ObjectManager which would remove the entire root tree of objects, removing just a single filter is just a matter of emitting InterfacesRemoved, same thing if you want to add another filter just emit InterfacesAdded with the new filter, we can either use the Release or a dedicate methot to notify if the filter is malformed or something like that.
I'd rather have this interface work the same as the Advertising API,
since we need to report failures upon registering an ADV monitor, e.g.
there may be no resources to allocate HW filtering or maybe the
filtering conditions cannot be fulfilled.
>
>>
>>
>> > +
>> > +Properties array{string} SupportedFilteringFeatures [read-only]
>> > +
>> > + This reflects the supported features of advertisement
>> > + monitoring. An application should check this before
>> > + instantiate an object of org.bluez.AdvertisementFilter1.
>> > +
>> > + Here are the potential features. More will be added.
>> > + "SoftwareBasedFiltering"
>> > + "PatternsWithORLogicRelation"
>> > + “RSSIMonitoring”
>>
>> So all our string values are lower-case and if needed we use - to separate words or logical details.
>>
>> I think exposing a good interface for selecting the filter patterns will take a bit. I would like to focus on getting the surrounding framework figured out first.
>>
>> Before finalizing an API, my test was always to write a simple client and check if it meets the requirement for being simple enough. If it becomes cumbersome for the client, then we need to consider putting some of the more complicated parts into bluetoothd.
>>
>> Let me try to give an example. If the majority of the clients just want to find a device with UUID 0xFE23, then we should have a special casing for that.
>>
>> RegisterMonitor(monitor, dict{MatchUUID=0xFE23}).
>>
>> Done. That they have to differentiate between one vendors way of doing this compared to another on how to provide the information should be up to bluetoothd to figure it out (and yes, I know it is not as simple when the AD type is a list).
>>
>
> Im a little confused here, doesn't there need to match the filter Type? That would be much simpler for the client then to know what filter it would be able to register, then we can go with SupportedFilterTypes which would enumerate whatever possible values for filter types.
There are basically two ways how we can register an ADV monitor.
(1) RegisterMonitor(object monitor)
The monitor object would have properties that represent the type of
filter, the filtering conditions, RSSI thresholds and their timers.
It's more flexible to have properties representing criteria for filtering.
(2) RegisterMonitor(object monitor, dict thresholds, dict filter)
The monitor object would not have any property at all. This enforces
the no-reuse policy on an ADV monitor by not providing any property to
update. However, this does not fulfill the future use cases where the
filtering can be more complex.
Other the topic on what parameters we should send along with
DeviceFound(), this is the other blocker for settling the API.
Approach (1) seems to be the right way to go, what do you think?
Thanks,
Miao
