Bill,
My only points for the items below was that
1) System configuration or conditions can cause the transition as
well as an operation
2) Job operations or conditions can affect this transition change
for a specific job just as well as service wide operations or conditions
can affect this job transitions.
The issue was raised by an implementer that was unsure if a required
resource would affect the state of a pending job.
Pete
Peter Zehler
Xerox Research Center Webster
Email: Peter.Zehler at Xerox.com
Voice: (585) 265-8755
FAX: (585) 265-7441
US Mail: Peter Zehler
Xerox Corp.
800 Phillips Rd.
M/S 128-25E
Webster NY, 14580-9701
From: William Wagner [mailto:wamwagner at comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 12:36 PM
To: Zehler, Peter; mfd at pwg.org
Subject: RE: [MFD] Job State Transition Diagram error
Yes. Right now, the transition effectors are indicated by italicized
general statements (e.g., Job Completed) or citing actual operations
(CreateJob). Although it would be useful to indicate how each
transition may be effected by an operation, that would probably render
the diagram unreadable. Further, we appear to be constantly adding more
operations and now operation attributes that affect Job State. My
inclination is to replace all remaining operation transition effectors
with generic statements; e.g., HoldJob Request becomes Job Held. The
correlation between the general statements and the transition effectors
(Operations, Processing Events, Problem Events, Operation Attribute
enabled Events) would be dealt with elsewhere (perhaps in the
descriptions of Operations).
That does bring up another question. How many more of the IPP
operations will be re-stated as <service> Operations? I have attached
(if it gets through) a table of IPP operations (derived from the recent
IPP work) versus MFD Operations as they now are listed, with my
understanding of correlation. I think it best to resolve the
discrepancies now.
Thanks,
Bill Wagner
From: mfd-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:mfd-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of
Zehler, Peter
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 8:03 AM
To: mfd at pwg.org
Subject: [MFD] Job State Transition Diagram error
All,
The diagram for the Job State transition is incorrect.
1) The transition from Pending to PendingHeld only shows the
HoldJob event. According to the definition of the PendingHeld state
"the job is not a candidate for processing for any number of reasons and
will return to the Pending state when the reasons are no longer
present". An example could be an unavailable resource.
2) The transition from Processing to ProcessingStopped says
"Service Stopped". I believe that it should be "Job or Service
Stopped". The commands Suspend<service>Job and Resume<service>Job cause
the transitions. A required resource or a critical fault will cause the
transition to ProcessingStopped. The resource becoming available or
clearing the critical fault can cause the reverse transition. The
currently described Service conditions for the transition remain valid.
Pete
Peter Zehler
Xerox Research Center Webster
Email: Peter.Zehler at Xerox.com
Voice: (585) 265-8755
FAX: (585) 265-7441
US Mail: Peter Zehler
Xerox Corp.
800 Phillips Rd.
M/S 128-25E
Webster NY, 14580-9701
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/mfd/attachments/20100106/a7a5b88b/attachment-0001.html>