JOLIE and Plasma: status and discussion

[Fabrizio Montesi]

On Monday 24 November 2008 18:10:06 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Sunday 23 November 2008, Fabrizio Montesi wrote:
> > On Saturday 22 November 2008 02:49:57 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > > something else i just remembered:
> > >
> > > we're going to want to think about the full round trip "experience":
> > >
> > > use case: widget wants to use a web service
> > >
> > > * it says "give me this web service" -> that should be a one liner with
> > > no jargon in it, just the URL of the service and return a
> > > Plasma::Service ready to go
> >
> > That's not possible in all cases with our current API, because web
> > services have quirks and quirks require protocol parameters to be passed
> > to Jolie
>
> in the common case of a SOAP based service, how common are these quirks?
>
> e.g. would we be able to get away with a "give me this web service" method
> call that take a JOLIE script as an optional parameter?
>
> *thinks*
>
> in fact, we could even do this with a bit of magic, making the optional
> parameter even more.. uh .. optional:
>
> * if the applet has a package and
> 	 the package includes a JOLIE script of the same name
> * or there is a matching file in the $APPDATADIR/jolie/ file
> * then use the JOLIE script automatically
Yes, and yes.
We could also make the protocol configuration loadable by XML files (the XML 
parsing can be done by MetaService, you can send it as a string), the latter 
written as something similar to:
<protocolConfiguration>
soap
<use_nice_quirk>yes</use_nice_quirk>
<ws_addressing>
1
<handleCorrelation>0</handleCorrelation>
</ws_addressing>
</protocolConfiguration>

We would need to support the loading of Jolie scripts anyway (for more complex 
cases or coding distributed behaviour as backend to a plasmoid), so while this 
option (the XML one) could be nice I'm wondering if we would end up with too 
many ways to do the same thing, and I don't like this feeling. ;)