Could you elaborate on your statement a little?
Randy
Paul Moore wrote:
>> My research (with the people who have written the code) shows that
> this
> is not the case
>> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Randy Turner [SMTP:rturner at sharplabs.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 1997 5:05 PM
> > To: ipp at pwg.org> > Subject: Re: IPP> jobid (one more time)
> >
> > Paul Moore wrote:
> > >
> > > The new job MIB defines a 32-bit job identifier that persists as a
> > way
> > > of identifying a job.
> > >
> > > The Win32 API does the same - used on the vast majority of the
> > world's
> > > desktops.
> > >
> > > Bob H says that UNIX uses a 32 bit job ID in the same way.
> > >
> > > It's not like I am suggesting that we use something obscure,
> > > non-published or only used by 1% of the world. I am suggesting
> that
> > we
> > > may want to leverage some of the exisiting software in the world.
> >
> >
> > From my research, you can't use the job-id returned by an IPP
> > server to access the Win95 print spooler. You have to use the
> > job-id (DWORD value) returned by the AddJob() API call. You will
> > then have to maintain a mapping between this Win95-derived job-id
> > and the job-id/job-uri returned by a remote IPP server. We are not
> > proposing replacing the existing software in the world, just
> > supplementing it.
> >
> > I think the job MIB also specifies an octet string for supplemental
> > job identification (is this right Tom H.?)
> >
> > Randy