[BEEPwg] BEEP question

Gabe Wachob gwachob@wachob.com
Mon, 18 Feb 2002 09:32:55 -0800 (PST)

Your question is not meaningless at all! You wouldn't use JMS as a
"transport" layer though.. that would simply not be BEEP.

In short, there is no BEEP-provided facility for this sort of "rendezvous"
functionality. That doesn't mean it couldn't be defined as a BEEP Profile
(which all three parties would have to implement in one form or another).

You may want to check out the TUNNEL profile at

I don't think this will provide the "rendezvous" functionality you are
looking for, but it may help in some situations.

A profile for your situation is something I've been thinking about for a
while, but I don't think anyone has published any profiles towards solving
this problem.


On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, yuexiang wrote:

> Hello,
> This question confused me for some time already.
> In the following, I try to describe my question:
>    A host ---->firewall ---- >internet --> B host <--------internet
> ------firewall<------C host
> A direct TCP connection could be established between A host and B host,
> based on this TCP
> connection, BEEP protocol can be implemented and employed between A host
> and B host.
> But, is it possible that BEEP protocol connects A host and C host? I
> meam one of them( A host
> and C host) acting as the INITIATING ROLE and the other acting as the
> For example, If I employ JMS to establish a direct virtual connection
> between A host and C host
> to support BEEP protocol messages between them.
> Probably my question is stupid because it is meaningnessless.
> Any comment?
> Thanks a lot
> yangyuexiang
> _______________________________________________
> BEEPwg mailing list
> BEEPwg@lists.beepcore.org
> http://lists.beepcore.org/mailman/listinfo/beepwg

Gabe Wachob                   gwachob@wachob.com
Personal                   http://www.wachob.com
CTO, WiredObjects    http://www.wiredobjects.com