On May 9, 12:05pm, JK Martin wrote:
> Subject: Re: Re: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal
> There is perhaps a reasonable compromise that no one has yet offered:
> If a vendor chooses to add two alert entries for the printer-stopping
> low toner condition, then the offline alert should have its description
> string clearly state that the reason for going offline is due to the
> low toner condition, and not simply say "Offline" (as so many do now).
> Is this a fair compromise?
If we are going to have multiple "types" of offline, then the other variables
in the alert table probably should reflect the differences. At a minimum the
offline alert should have different prtAlertLocation's based on the "type" of
offline. To me a better implementation would have different alert groups and
alert group indexes as well.
This could take a lot of space in an imbedded system where space is precious,
either code space to create the entry and then ram space to store it or extra
entries in a table. Additionally this could clutter up the alert table with
multiple offlines and we should definatly try to hold the size of the table
Given that you really want to inform the user of why the printer is not
printing, I like your previous suggestion better. One alert describes the true
state imposed by the alert(one alert that is tonerlow, critical and one that is
tonerlow wraning). This also seems to be more consistent with other critical
errors. It is annoying that I have two alerts for basically the same engine
event, but to me, it is cleaner then the above.
>-- End of excerpt from JK Martin