Semantic Model Mail Archive: Re: SM> Re: ISSUE 18: Or should

Semantic Model Mail Archive: Re: SM> Re: ISSUE 18: Or should

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

From: Dennis Carney (dcarney@us.ibm.com)
Date: Mon Oct 28 2002 - 11:51:58 EST

  • Next message: Zehler, Peter: "SM> Semantic Model Telecon - "-actual" Document Review"

    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@cp10.es To: ipp@pwg.org
                          .xerox.com> cc: sm@pwg.org
                          Sent by: Subject: SM> Re: ISSUE 18: Or should the client be REQUIRED to support some of the Document
                          owner-sm@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



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 28 2002 - 11:54:05 EST