- From: Lucas Gonze <lucas@worldos.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 12:58:36 -0400
- Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
BEEP is more powerful at the transport level -- EG multiple message streams can be interleaved on the same channel. You could do everything beep does as a dialect of HTTP, but it would be harder than starting from scratch. I would be surprized if there isn't an HTTP binding for BEEP semantics, though. - Lucas > In what way is this significantly different from HTTP? > The only difference I see is the use of position rather > than keywords for parameters, a giant leap backwards. > > John. > > At 11:55 AM 5/9/2001 +0200, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote: > >Lucas, > > > >I guess you've come across BEEP before? > > command SP channel SP msgno SP more SP seqno SP size CRLF > > [content type CRLF] > > CRLF > > XML data CRLF > > END > > > >Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > >Lucas Gonze wrote: > > > > > I am looking for examples of XML protocols that do message transfer > > over "plain" > > > TCP, i.e. without an HTTP wrapper. If you know something about the > > formatting > > > it would be very helpful. > > > > > > For example, a Goa protocol message as sent over TCP, and without > HTTP, is: > > > Goa CRLF > > > byte count of XML data CRLF > > > XML data > > > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > > > - Lucas > > ______________________________________________________ > John J. Barton email: John_Barton@hpl.hp.com > http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/John_Barton/index.htm > MS 1U-17 Hewlett-Packard Labs > 1501 Page Mill Road phone: (650)-236-2888 > Palo Alto CA 94304-1126 FAX: (650)-857-5100 > >
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2001 13:00:49 UTC