[standards-jig] JNG Ramblings.

Marshall Rose mrose+internet.jabber.standards-jig at dbc.mtview.ca.us
Fri Aug 9 20:43:17 UTC 2002

> Well, one thing is for sure, is that we don't want make ourselves do our
> own BEEP implementations because we bastardized the protocol. BEEP
> implementations are quite heavy with channel management and flow
> control, and amount to 50% of a user-space TCP implementation - on top
> of TCP. Use existing BEEP implementations, or don't use it at all. A
> framer for the protocol I laid out is an order of magnitude less complex
> than a BEEP implementation.

mike - the various open source implementations that i'm aware of tend toward generality. so yes, they're going to spend a fair amount of time supporting multiple channels, which some might find offensive.

someone who doesn't want to support multiple channels can still write a conformant beep stack that "just says no" to certain requests. this vastly simplifies the implementation, and isn't a "bastardization" in any sense of the word.

phrased alternately, you're free to write your own beep stack in such a way that your objection above becomes a no-op.

similarly, someone who uses an off-the-shelf implementation, can simply ignore the issue because they aren't doing the coding... if size is an issue, then go back one paragraph.

as to whether or not beep is what folks want for JNG, i don't have an opinion, because i think it's a mistake to lose the elegance of an xml-based framing mechanism.


More information about the Standards mailing list