IPP> Re: JMP> jmJobState and jmJobStateReasonsTC [ISSUE: Are ther

IPP> Re: JMP> jmJobState and jmJobStateReasonsTC [ISSUE: Are ther

IPP> Re: JMP> jmJobState and jmJobStateReasonsTC [ISSUE: Are ther

Harry Lewis harryl at us.ibm.com
Tue May 27 14:14:12 EDT 1997


Even printers that don't spool or queue will typically "buffer" some number of
pages. Given the possibility of single page jobs... then some jobs can be
pending. I guess we should ask ourselves what it means to have a "mandatory"
state. Just because a state is Mandatory does not mean an implementation must
"force" jobs to enter that state. If that were so... I'd REALLY be in favor of
eliminating the NeedsAttention state! ;->


Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems




------- Forwarded by Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM on 05/27/97 11:59 AM ------


        jmp-owner at pwg.org
        05/27/97 11:51 AM
Please respond to jmp-owner at pwg.org @ internet




To: jkm at underscore.com @ internet, jmp at pwg.org @ internet
cc: ipp at pwg.org @ internet
Subject: Re: JMP> jmJobState and jmJobStateReasonsTC [ISSUE: Are ther


If a simple output device implements IPP and doesn't queue or spool, wouldn't
the jobs in that output device never be in pending?  Such a device would
refuse acceptance of another job, while it was processing its current job.
That is why pending is conditionally mandatory in IPP and therfore also in
JMP.


Would it help to indicate that if an implementation queues or spools,
that it shall implement the 'pending' state jobs that are queued or spooled
but are not yet processing?


Tom



More information about the Ipp mailing list