IPP> Resolving IPP/JMP job-state and job-state-reasons differences:

IPP> Resolving IPP/JMP job-state and job-state-reasons differences:

IPP> Resolving IPP/JMP job-state and job-state-reasons differences:

Robert Herriot Robert.Herriot at Eng.Sun.COM
Tue May 20 15:01:49 EDT 1997


Good analysis Tom.


The following is my opinion on what should change to align IPP and JobMIB.
I think that IPP and the JobMIB each offer some good ideas.


I would like to keep the job states very simple and make sure that
they go in a simple progression with detours handled by job-state-reasons.
We mostly did that in IPP, but the JobMIB did a better job at the end of
the job.


I suggest that the IPP (and JobMIB) state progression be:


                        ---> completed
pending -> processing - | 
                        ---> canceled


Even though canceled could be handled by a job-state-reason under completed,
I think that it is an important reminder that the job didn't complete
for some reason, hopefully explained in the job-state-reasons.


This means that there are the following job-state-reasons: 


   o job-held during the pending state
   o printer-stopped during the pending or processing state
   o job-retained during the completed or canceled state.


It also means that the follow IPP states go away:


   o terminating becomes canceled which has a longer duration
   o retained becomes a job-state-reasons job-retained


I would prefer that both IPP and the JobMIB adopt these states. It
requires changes for both, but I think it is a better solution than
either currently offers.


Bob Herriot


 



More information about the Ipp mailing list