[FoRK] Whither BEEP? Re: HTTP 0.2, 9p, and op

Stephen Williams sdw at lig.net
Thu Dec 24 12:19:35 PST 2009


Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Dec 24, 2009, at 10:39 AM, Stephen Williams wrote:
>   
>> Anything sane in a general sense must be async, pipelined, channelized lightweight message oriented with end to end flow control and adaptive rate handling.  
>>
>> HTTP-like messages over BEEP or AMQP would be fine.  
>>     
>
> Just out of curiosity -- does anyone know why BEEP doesn't seem to have taken off? It seems more general and lighter than, say, XMPP, and on alternate weeks I agree with you that it makes more sense than abusing HTTP.
>   

I know all kinds of details about when it came out, but basically it is 
a mystery to me why others didn't layer on BEEP.  I conversed with 
Marshall Rose when he released it.  I was part of the IETF working group 
on presence/IM, which ended up having three spinoffs who couldn't 
reconcile: XMPP, SIMPLE (SIP), and I think a BEEP-based proposal (BXXP 
at the time, a little too clever).  Even though I went on to Jabber.com, 
Inc. for a while, I thought that XMPP had some basic errors that should 
have been fixed.  And I was wanting to do what AMQP is doing now.  With 
the same or better efficiencies since I had just come from AOL 
Buddylist/Instant Images.

However, most people wouldn't listen, didn't get it.
> Yet (other than my homie Xgrid :-) I'm not really aware of anything "interesting" built using BEEP, nor does it appear to be gaining momentum.
>   

It is a good reference design.  Needs better libraries and some killer 
app.  I've used it in projects.
> Any theories?
>
> -- Ernie P.
>   

sdw



More information about the FoRK mailing list