I guess I'm a bit disappointed that we elected to not do the "elegant"
thing and simply have 3 states (pending, processing, done), then use
a set defined of substates to describe refinements of those states.
A rare chance to do something that is both elegant *and* simple.
----- Begin Included Message -----
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 15:23:22 -0700
From: Robert.Herriot at Eng.Sun.COM (Robert Herriot)
To: ipp at pwg.org, harryl at us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: JMP> Re: IPP> MOD JobState suggestion
Cc: jmp at pwg.org
In one sense we have just renamed some states: held to pending-stopped
and needs-attention to processing-stopped. But the renaming regularizes
the names to give the impression that there are 3 high level states
of pending, processing and completed and 4 additional variant of those
states. These regularized states allow us to have other attributes
that draw from these names, e.g. time-since-pending time-since-processing
and time-since-completed. It also allows the addition of other states,
such as completed-with-errors.
> From harryl at us.ibm.com Mon Jun 2 15:09:05 1997
>> I am confused by the notation used in this discussion:
>> >The states are:
>> > pending
> > pending-stopped
> > processing
> > processing-stopped
> > done-aborted
> > done-canceled
> > done-completed
>> >I suggest changing the last three states to
>> > completed
> > completed-canceled
> > completed-abort
>> I understand PENDING, PROCESSING and COMPLETED states. I thought I was
> following a thread, somewhere, that PENDING-STOPPED was another way to say HELD
> and PROCESSING-STOPPED was another way to say NEEDS ATTENTION. Is this what is
> going on... just some renaming? Or do the "dashes" in these names indicate
> separation between a state and a reason?
>> I agree with Bob's recommendations, above, to stick with Completed rather than
> Done. Why change? And, for that matter, why not keep HELD and NEEDS ATTENTION?
> What are we gaining. I find these discussions frequently go down the "generic
> language" path until the labels we choose are so vague that, rather than risk
> misinterpretation, the names end up meaning very little at all.
>> Harry Lewis
----- End Included Message -----