[MFD] Overall MFD Document

[MFD] Overall MFD Document

[MFD] Overall MFD Document

William Wagner wamwagner at comcast.net
Wed Jan 6 20:48:37 UTC 2010


Happy New Year!

 

I have posted an update to the Overall MFD Model document, reflecting those
issues from the December face-to-face that I can address. 

 

ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/wd/wd-mfdoverallmod10-20100104.pdf

 

Note some schema diagrams need updating and are awaiting a new schema post.
Other items also remain open.

 

MS Word continues to be difficult, especially in screwing up cross
references. 

 

In addition to highlighting some new text, there are some comments that, to
avoid balloons, do not show up. They are as follows:

 

C1

Paragraph 2.3 Needs to be reworked to reflect schema changes.

C2 

Table 17.Keyword for Feed direction?

C3

Section 7.3  originally followed the pattern of Scan and Resource specs,
although additional operations added have had descriptions derived from IPP
corollaries. However, operation attributes, error messages etc have not been
discussed. Should they be?

Note that some new operation descriptions have been added.

C4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10

Service Operations in 7.3.2: Since there can be multiple instance of a given
service type, need the request identify the instance? If so, how?

C7

Para 7.3.2.8 New writeup

C 11

Para 7.3.2.18 The IPP spec includes processing stopped as a valid state from
which to suspend a job. Is a job in Processing Stopped considered a current
job? If any Job is in Processing Stopped, is the operation considered
successful? Following paragraph says no.

C12

Para 7.3.2.18  If the JobID is included and it is one of several jobs in
processing, I assume only the ID'd job is suspended?

 

Thanks,

 

Bill Wagner

 

 

From: Zehler, Peter [mailto:Peter.Zehler at xerox.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 12:49 PM
To: William Wagner; mfd at pwg.org
Subject: RE: [MFD] Job State Transition Diagram error

 

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  <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, 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/20100106/4131f7f0/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the mfd mailing list