IPP> New CUPS 1.1 beta and set-job-attributes extension [why not use "job-sheets"?]

IPP> New CUPS 1.1 beta and set-job-attributes extension [why not use "job-sheets"?]

IPP> New CUPS 1.1 beta and set-job-attributes extension [why not use "job-sheets"?]

McDonald, Ira imcdonald at sharplabs.com
Mon Mar 20 23:11:16 EST 2000


Hi Michael,

Thanks.  You added a voice to mine (the one out in this
wilderness on recent IPP WG Telecons) saying that 'collections'
were not really a 'simple' extension.

I have grave reservations about ANY future point version of
IPP making support for the 'collection' syntax mandatory.
Even with the latest 'legacy friendly' encoding proposals
from Bob Herriot (thanks Bob), I'm not a fan of 'collections'.

In essence, 'collections' are 'poor man's objects'.  I still
haven't heard the compelling case for why we wouldn't just
use REAL objects (for example 'Resource' object, in the ISO DPA
'document resource' sense of fonts, forms, logos, etc.).

Cheers,
- Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Sharp Labs America
  High North Inc


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Sweet [mailto:mike at easysw.com]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 7:33 PM
To: Hastings, Tom N
Cc: IPP Mailing List
Subject: Re: IPP> New CUPS 1.1 beta and set-job-attributes extension
[why not use "job-sheets"?]


"Hastings, Tom N" wrote:
> ...
> Wouldn't it be simpler to use these values in CUPS, rather than
> introducing two new Job Template attributes?

1. The PPE uses COLLECTIONS for this stuff
2. Collections are still being defined.
3. CUPS currently does not do anything with collections (it will
   store the raw data, but that is all)
4. Without collections the job-sheets attribute cannot support
   what CUPS needs to do.

Given those things, it is unlikely in the EXTREME that we will
change our design this close to a final release.

It is *possible* that we can change the names of the attributes
to "job-sheets-*", however I am concerned that we might step on
future attributes.  Possible names:

    job-sheets-supported
    job-sheets-start-default
    job-sheets-end-default
    job-sheets-start
    job-sheets-end

At least that would be in line with the IPP spec, but that also
means we must support "job-sheets" and "job-sheets-default".  I'm
not sure how we would map that given the ambiguity in the spec...

Another possibility might be to overload the "name" value to use
"start,end" for the "job-sheets" and "job-sheets-default" attributes,
however that might break clients that try to compare them against
the "job-sheets-supported" values.

In any case, any change we make now CANNOT include support for the
PPE spec.

-- 
______________________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products                  mike at easysw.com
Printing Software for UNIX                       http://www.easysw.com



More information about the Ipp mailing list