Semantic Model Mail Archive: RE: IPP> Re: SM> Re: ISSUE 1

Semantic Model Mail Archive: RE: IPP> Re: SM> Re: ISSUE 1

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

From: Hastings, Tom N (hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com)
Date: Wed Oct 30 2002 - 03:49:49 EST

  • Next message: Hastings, Tom N: "SM> IPP Document Object spec available, V0.5, 10/15/02"

    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@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 05:14
    To: Hastings, Tom N
    Cc: ipp@pwg.org; Paul Moore; sm@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@cp10.es To: Paul Moore
    <pmoore@netreon.com>, Dennis Carney/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS

                          .xerox.com> cc: "Hastings, Tom N"
    <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>, ipp@pwg.org, sm@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@netreon.com]
    Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 09:19
    To: Dennis Carney
    Cc: Hastings, Tom N; ipp@pwg.org; sm@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@us.ibm.com>@pwg.org on 10/28/2002 08:51:58 AM

    Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org

    To: "Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>
    cc: ipp@pwg.org, sm@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@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 : Wed Oct 30 2002 - 04:22:51 EST