IPP> Re: SM> Re: ISSUE 18: Or should the client be REQUIRED to support some of the Document operations?

IPP> Re: SM> Re: ISSUE 18: Or should the client be REQUIRED to support some of the Document operations?

IPP> Re: SM> Re: ISSUE 18: Or should the client be REQUIRED to support some of the Document operations?

Paul Moore pmoore at netreon.com
Mon Oct 28 12:19:03 EST 2002


and requiring clients to support something is a strange thing to do. As
long as the client does what the user wants it to do why force ti to do
anything.
It servers that must be forced to do things so that client can be sure that
certian things will be available




"Dennis Carney" <dcarney at us.ibm.com>@pwg.org on 10/28/2002 08:51:58 AM

Sent by:    owner-ipp at pwg.org


To:    "Hastings, Tom N" <hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com>
cc:    ipp at pwg.org, sm at pwg.org

Subject:    IPP> Re: SM> Re: ISSUE 18: Or should the client be REQUIRED to
       support some of   the Document operations?


Tom,

I don't understand how we went from base IPP being written with an emphasis
on printing (not monitoring) to having IPP extensions forcing every client
to not only monitor, but to monitor using multiple different operations
(Get-Documents could be sufficient, couldn't it?).  I'm not at all sure
that all clients in the world can be grouped into the three groups you
list, but the "Job submitting clients" you mention might be instructed to
submit Document Template attributes, but not do any monitoring at all.

I am a big fan of job monitoring clients, but I can't see MUSTing everyone
to agree with me.  (Did I just coin a new verb?  Drats--MUSTed again! :-)

Dennis



                      "Hastings, Tom N"

                      <hastings at cp10.es        To:       ipp at pwg.org

                      .xerox.com>              cc:       sm at pwg.org

                      Sent by:                 Subject:  SM> Re: ISSUE 18:
Or should the client be REQUIRED to support some of    the Document
                      owner-sm at pwg.org          operations?



                      10/28/02 09:00 AM






We agreed not to require the client to support any Document operations,
because of the various kinds of clients:  Job submitting ones, Operator
clients that control the system, and Monitoring clients that monitor the
system.  Also a Job submitting client might monitor the system using, say,
the PWG Job Monitoring MIB, instead of the Get-Document-Attributes and
Get-Documents operations.

How about a conditional client conformance statement like the following:

A client MAY support any of the Document object operations defined in
section 3.  However, if the client supports supplying Document Template
attributes in Document Creation operations, then the client MUST support
all
of the following Document operations:  Create-Document, Send-Data,
Send-Document, Get-Document-Attributes, Get-Documents, and Cancel-Document.

Comments?

Thanks,
Tom













More information about the Ipp mailing list