Sin asunto

Jue Jul 26 07:55:54 CEST 2012

an application protocol that provides channels over the same session,
asynchronous exchange, integrated session security and integrated auth,
etc, will end up in something that is really close to, why
don't use it directly?

The interesting thing is that if you look at the core issues that are
being addressing at the Websocket mailling list (or at least most of
them), you'll find that most of them were addressed previously by the
BEEP working group...that led to the BEEP definition.

My overall impression is that (re-)inventing the next big thing is the
preferred approach than reusing and/or extending that is already
available (assuming we have to design something that is really different
from HTTP/1.1 infrastructure).

Another explanation that lives at the heart of your question is that
BEEP was wrongly presented (at the beginning) as a HTTP replacement
(obviously it isn't) creating wrong expectations. Some times I thing
BEEP appeared too soon...

Anyway, we will keep on using BEEP and extending our products using it
as much as we can especially because it WORKS and it has a crystal clear
definition (something we can't say usually from other definitions). 

We believe it's got a great opportunity in the new changing market
(smartphones and tablets) where WEB guys doesn't have all the power to
decide what's right and what's not (or what language or application
protocol you can use which is crazy). 


> Hi, went to <> to comment after a SPDY article
> appeared on slashdot, tried to leave a comment but due to use of
> script + some sign-in stuff, didn't happen.
> So, if I may email you what I tried to leave there:
> ---
> Hi, 
> I'm not a web or network guy (more databases & general dev) but
> whenever spdy comes up I wonder why BEEP isn't used, as it is a lower
> level (ie. more general and less tied to any particular use) than
> http, and has a number of features that are similar to spdy.
> From <>: "SPDY achieves reduced
> latency through compression, multiplexing, and prioritization"
> from <> "BEEP is not a protocol for sending and
> receiving data directly. Rather, it allows you to define your
> application protocol on top of it, reusing several mechanisms such as:
> asynchronous communications, transport layer security, peer
> authentication, channel multiplexing on the same connection, message
> framing, channel bandwidth management, and many more interesting
> network features. [including message prioritisation I believe]"
> Incidentally I've never used beep but the overlap is evident and solid
> implementations exist, I understand, so why not use it?
> ---
> Well, why not? BEEP was designed by the guy who did POP3, SMTP, and
> SNMP (so says wiki).
> I've cc'd this to beepcore. 
> Maybe I'm wasting your time, but maybe not...
> cheers
> jan

Francis Brosnan Blázquez <francis.brosnan en>
91 134 14 22 - 91 134 14 45 - 91 116 07 57


Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Los datos
incluidos en el presente correo son confidenciales y sometidos a secreto
profesional, se prohíbe divulgarlos, en virtud de las leyes vigentes. Si
usted no lo es y lo ha recibido por error o tiene conocimiento del mismo
por cualquier motivo, le rogamos que nos lo comunique por este medio y
proceda a destruirlo o borrarlo.

En virtud de lo dispuesto en la Ley Orgánica 15/1999, de 13 de
diciembre, de Protección de Datos de Carácter Personal, le informamos de
que sus datos de carácter personal, recogidos de fuentes accesibles al
público o datos que usted nos ha facilitado previamente, proceden de
bases de datos propiedad de Advanced Software Production Line, S.L.
(ASPL). No obstante, usted puede ejercitar sus derechos de acceso,
rectificación, cancelación y oposición dispuestos en la mencionada Ley
Orgánica, notificándolo por escrito a:
ASPL - Protección Datos, C/Antonio Suárez 10 A-102, 28802, Alcalá de
Henares (Madrid).

Más información sobre la lista de distribución Beepwg