YES - for 'prtInputMaxCapacity' I'll return 100, as you say.
Products that don't KNOW their actual capacity but only their
relative level really do NEED this 'percent' extension.
I have found email from Xerox and FujiXerox implementors in my
own archives more than two years ago asking for this exact
extension to capacity/level objects. We did nothing about
it at the time because the Printer MIB v2 was dead in the
water for over two years.
So what if capacity is uninformative. The levels ARE.
- Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Xerox and Sharp
High North Inc
From: Dennis Carney [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 11:57 AM
To: 'email@example.com'; 'firstname.lastname@example.org'
Subject: FIN> Add 'percent(19)' to 'PrtCapacityUnitTC' and
What are you going to return for prtInputMaxCapacity when
prtInputCapacityUnit is 'percent'? 100? The same capacity unit is used for
both max capacity and current level, and 'percent' fits one but not the
IBM Printing Systems
---------------------- Forwarded by Dennis Carney/Boulder/IBM on 11/17/2000
12:56 PM ---------------------------
"McDonald, Ira" <email@example.com>@pwg.org on 11/17/2000 12:25:50 PM
Sent by: firstname.lastname@example.org
Implementors here at Sharp have found a serious problem with
'prtInputCurrentLevel', 'prtOutputRemainingCapacity' and
Their related units objects need 'percent(19)' added to
allow reporting of RELATIVE levels (often the only
information known from sensors).
- 'PrtCapacityUnitTC' should have 'items(18)' (per Ron B
and Harry L) and 'percent(19)' added
- 'PrtMarkerSuppliesSupplyUnitTC' should have 'percent(19)'
BOTH of these textual conventions should also have 'other(1)'
and 'unknown(2)' added - this would provide short-term
relief to the NEXT product team that finds a missing unit
AFTER the Printer MIB v2 is published as an RFC.
- Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Sharp
High North Inc
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Nov 19 2000 - 16:41:28 EST