[BXXPwg] Updated strawman for BEEP protocol URIs

Gabe Wachob gwachob@wachob.com
Mon, 18 Jun 2001 22:17:36 -0700 (PDT)


Ah, ok, I get it now - you are talking about the "click on this URL" mode
of application. I had not considered that - I had not considered that
there would be some way to launch an beep application from within (say) an
HTML page. (I could embed a IMXP URL for example).

Fair enough. Good counterexample. The initiator is still going to drive
the decision of which profile to use (I was confused when you talked about
the *listener* making a decision - that threw me off).

	-Gabe

On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Dan Kohn wrote:

> If the URL scheme were just "beep", the application would connect and
> see, I can do IMXP or syslog-raw.  This would be fixed if there were a
> profile field in the beep URL scheme name, but that's very ugly because:
>
> A) who wants a URL in a URL, and
> B) it incorrectly assumes that there is a single BEEP client to be
> invoked, when in fact that are probably multiple applications, each of
> which speaks a certain BEEP profile.
>
> My proposal addresses this by mapping one-to-one between BEEP profiles
> and URL scheme names so that the right application is launched for any
> given profile.  This additionally enables a listener to support multiple
> profiles on the same port without confusion, since the initiator knows
> which profile it should use from the scheme name.
>
> I don't know how to more clearly answer your question.  Could I suggest
> you go back to my proposal from a few messages ago and, if you have an
> issue with it, suggest an alternative?
>
> 		- dan
> --
> Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@dankohn.com>
> <http://www.dankohn.com/>  <tel:+1-650-327-2600>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gabe Wachob [mailto:gwachob@wachob.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 22:00
> To: Dan Kohn
> Cc: bxxpwg@lists.invisibleworlds.com; 'Roy Fielding'
> Subject: RE: [BXXPwg] Updated strawman for BEEP protocol URIs
>
>
> I'm having a hard time understaning in what situation an application
> would
> think "hmm, I have this endpoint, should I do IMXP or syslog-raw?" I
> mean,
> even if it did both of those functions, wouldn't it know by context (eg
> different fill-in fields in some config screen) that the particular
> endpoint can be used for either profile?
>
> The application is not making the decision - "here's an endpoint, whats
> something interesting I can do with it". Rather, the logic is "I want to
> do profile X, do I have an endpoint with which to do profile X"...
>
> 	-Gabe
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Dan Kohn wrote:
>
> > The initiator needs the URL, but the unique scheme names per profile
> are
> > required if the listener is offering multiple profiles on the same
> port.
> >
> > A BEEP initiator is told by a URL to begin a session.  The listener
> > supports two profiles on the same port, IMXP and raw syslog.  A
> > hypothetical "beep" URL would not be able to specify which profile
> > should be selected.  But, an imxp or syslog.raw URL scheme name is by
> > definition bound to a single BEEP profile, so there is no confusion
> over
> > which profile to select.
> >
> > 		- dan
> > --
> > Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@dankohn.com>
> > <http://www.dankohn.com/>  <tel:+1-650-327-2600>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gabe Wachob [mailto:gwachob@wachob.com]
> > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 21:48
> > To: Dan Kohn
> > Cc: bxxpwg@lists.invisibleworlds.com; Roy Fielding
> > Subject: Re: [BXXPwg] Updated strawman for BEEP protocol URIs
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Dan Kohn wrote:
> >
> > > The counterexample for Gabe is a beep listener that, for whatever
> > > reason, supports profiles for two or more services on the same port.
> > > Which is why I'd like to suggest the following (updated) proposal:
> >
> > Wait, why would a listener need a URL format? Only initiators are
> going
> > to
> > need this URL containing a profile.. Only an initiator is going to
> have
> > to
> > make a decision about *why* they are entering into a BEEP connection
> ..
> >
> > In other words, in BEEP, a "location" is not visible within the
> protocol
> > -
> > if you talk to a BEEP endpoint (listener), that listener basically
> only
> > cares really that you connected, and the negotiation for what profile
> to
> > "execute" is part of the greeting and channel creation - no URL
> > neccesary.
> >
> > 	-Gabe
> >
> >
>
>