IPP> RE: Should 'pending' be a mandatory state or not?

IPP> RE: Should 'pending' be a mandatory state or not?

IPP> RE: Should 'pending' be a mandatory state or not?

Tom Hastings hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com
Wed May 28 12:13:55 EDT 1997

How about we keep pending as CONDITIONALLY MANDATORY, but state the 
condition:  The pending state shall be implemented if jobs may not be able
to be proessed for human noticable amount of time, such as a second or more,
in certain circumstances.

How about if the Job Monitoring spec states the condition:




At 04:57 05/28/97 PDT, Peter Zehler wrote:
>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.
>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.

More information about the Ipp mailing list