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

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

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

Peter Zehler peter_zehler at ocp.mc.xerox.com
Wed May 28 07:57:06 EDT 1997


Tom,
The amount of time a job would be in the pending state on a non-queueing
 non-spooling printer could be noticable to humans.  It is dependant on the 
size of the print jobs on the other channels.  
I think it would simplify things just to have the pending state mandatory.  
Implementations could step through this state so quickly it would never be 
noticable to humans.
Pete
 


Peter,


How long would a job be in the pending state in your non-queuing, non-spooling
IPP system?


If the time is not noticable to humans, e.g., 100s of miliseconds, I would
think that there wan't much point in simplementin the IPP state of 'pending'.
If it was longer, so that end-users would see it for a while, while nothing
was happending on the printer, then it would be good to implemente the
IPP 'pending' state for your Printer object.


So your point was not that 'pending' must be a Mandatory state, but
that in your implementation of a simple, non-queuing, non-spooling printer
you wanted to be able to implement 'pending'.  So we just have to find
language that permits non-queuing, non-spooling printers to implement
'pending', but doesn't require it.


On the other hand, it might be simpler to mandate the 'pending' state
and for implementations that don't queue or spool, the state would
never be visible or would be visible for a very short period of time.


Tom



More information about the Ipp mailing list