IPP>PRO another reason for needing byterange and documen

IPP>PRO another reason for needing byterange and documen

IPP>PRO another reason for needing byterange and documen

Roger K Debry rdebry at us.ibm.com
Mon May 12 10:08:21 EDT 1997


>Jay Martin wrote:
>Is IPP expected to support checkpointing to the point where the
>client will resume submission of document at *precisely* the point
>where the transmission failed?


>I wouldn't think so.  Rather, the client would resume transmission
>at the *start* of the document that failed.


>Is this true?


 ...jay


There are several places you could restart:


1) The entire job (not adequate for large production
     environments.


2) The document that failed (also not adequate for
     large production jobs.  Although there was some
     argument that large jobs could be broken up into
     multiple documents, I doubt that we want IPP to
     have that kind of impact on existing production
     applications. At least I'm not willing to go and tell
     my customers that they have to rewrite their apps.)


3)  The last Send Document - this doesn't seem
      too difficult, especially with sequence numbers
      to identify each segment.  This also seems like a
      rational boundary to build checkpoints on.


4) bytes within a Send Document -  much harder to do,
    requires some dialogue between the client and the
    server to synchronize data.


5) You could also restart on a page boundary, but
    this is really much harder to do.



More information about the Ipp mailing list