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

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

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

Hastings, Tom N hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com
Wed Oct 30 03:49:49 EST 2002


I'm convinced to with draw the suggestion about requiring the client to do
any Document operations.  

Thanks for the discussion.

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Carney [mailto:dcarney at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 05:14
To: Hastings, Tom N
Cc: ipp at pwg.org; Paul Moore; sm at pwg.org
Subject: RE: IPP> Re: SM> Re: ISSUE 18: Or should the client be REQUIRED
t o support some of the Document operations?



Tom,

I would think both my argument and Paul's would also argue against
conditionally mandating Cancel-Document.  Additionally, this might have the
effect of pushing clients toward Send-Document instead of Create-Document,
since they can do that without then being forced to also support
Cancel-Document--not the effect you're trying to have, I don't think.

Dennis


 

                      "Hastings, Tom N"

                      <hastings at cp10.es        To:       Paul Moore
<pmoore at netreon.com>, Dennis Carney/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS

                      .xerox.com>              cc:       "Hastings, Tom N"
<hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com>, ipp at pwg.org, sm at pwg.org                   
                                               Subject:  RE: IPP> Re: SM>
Re: ISSUE 18: Or should the client be REQUIRED t       o support some of 
                      10/28/02 06:53 PM          the Document operations?

 

 

 




I hear what you are saying and see the problems of my proposal.

There was one comment on the SM telecon though that if the client creates
Document objects with Create-Document, then the client ought to be able to
Cancel such a Document.  Now that we agreed to REQUIRE a Printer that
supports the Document object to also support Cancel-Document (like
IPP/1.1),
how about REQUIRING a client to be able to cancel a document, if the client
supports the Create-Document operation?  In other words, if a user makes a
mistake, then the client ought to allow the user to correct it without
having to Cancel the entire job.

So the client conformance statement would be:

A client MUST support the Cancel-Document operation, if it supports the
Create-Document operation.

Comments?

Tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Moore [mailto:pmoore at netreon.com]
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 09:19
To: Dennis Carney
Cc: Hastings, Tom N; ipp at pwg.org; sm at pwg.org
Subject: Re: IPP> Re: SM> Re: ISSUE 18: Or should the client be REQUIRED
to support some of the Document operations?



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 Sm mailing list