JMP> Re: IPP> MOD JobState suggestion

JMP> Re: IPP> MOD JobState suggestion

JMP> Re: IPP> MOD JobState suggestion

Harry Lewis harryl at us.ibm.com
Wed Jun 4 10:09:15 EDT 1997


Tom, I support your proposal -


>JOINT IPP/JMP ISSUE - Should we go back to the name 'held', instead of
>'pending-stopped'?


Not only for the many good reasons you listed but simply due to the reduced
brain-strain. HELD... I can relate to. But what exactly happens when pending
stops? It's obvious, by most of my notes, that I'm not much of a comedian, but
I can picture one having fun with some of these genericized brain teasers.


>I think that 'processing-stopped' is fine and is clear that it is a
>sub-state of processing, so I'm not suggesting that we re-open the
>'processing-stopped' name change.


I guess processing-stopped is about as clear as needs-attention (I think
this was the old name in JMP). No big problem with the name. I'm not sure
I really understand your use of the term "sub-state", however. Are you
referring to a JobStateReason or are you thinking of a job transition
diagram? I THINK you are talking about job transition flow and
processing-stopped is really a STATE, not a REASON. I don't think stopped is
a very good reason to be processing.


Harry



More information about the Ipp mailing list