Re: SPDY feedback
Francis Brosnan Blazquez <francis <at> aspl.es>
2012-09-05 11:54:19 GMT
Hi Jan,
<I'm ccing beepwg mailling list>
This is an interesting question though I don't know if there's a
satisfactory answer 
From our perspective (as BEEP developers) any effort that seeks to build
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 BEEP...so, 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
(Continue reading)
RSS Feed