You want to add another attribute to IPP: job-sub-state
and another object to the JMP jmJobTable: jmJobSubState?
This doesn't sound like simplicity and elegance to me.
Instead, we've shown the "refinement" of these substates, in the
names of the states and not added any more attributes or objects.
That seems like the best of both worlds, namely show the refinement
but keep the attributes and object simple.
Or did you mean to add the sub-states as job-state-reasons which
wouldn't add anymore attributes to IPP and objects to JMP?
At 15:35 06/02/97 PDT, JK Martin wrote:
>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 -----
>>>From ipp-owner at pwg.org Mon Jun 2 18:28 EDT 1997
>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
>> and PROCESSING-STOPPED was another way to say NEEDS ATTENTION. Is this
>> 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
>> Done. Why change? And, for that matter, why not keep HELD and NEEDS
>> 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 -----