"Hastings, Tom N" <hastings at c...> wrote:
> I added Move-Job (renamed to Redirect-Job since no job movement is
> to the Job and Printer Administrative Operations spec that I just posted.
> This operation is limited to redirecting a job to another Printer on the
> same server.
This limitation seems a bit restrictive, particularly since the IPP Model
doesn't even define a server object.
I thought of a couple of ways to do a more general, true Move-Job operation
(maybe these have already been discussed and I've missed it). Given a
Client, an Old Printer, and a New Printer, the object is to get the job
from the Old Printer to the New Printer.
1) A Move-Job request sent from the Client to the Old Printer causes the
Old Printer to become an IPP client to the New Printer. The Old Printer
sends a Print-Job request to the New Printer. When the Old Printer
receives the Print-Job response from the New Printer, it returns this to
the Client as the Move-Job response. (If the job was accepted, this
response includes the new job-printer-uri, job-id, and job-uri, so the
Client can now track the job on the New Printer.)
2) Instead of a new Move-Job operation, define two new operations: one
which "inhales" the Job from the Old Printer into the Client, and another
which "exhales" it from the Client to the New Printer. What should these
new operations be called? Hmm, ..., ... ! IPPness indeed! On second
thought, maybe the exhale operation is redundant: the client could just do
a Print-Job. So, all we need is a new Get-Job operation that allows the
Client to pull the complete Job back from the Old Printer so that it can be
sent to the new Printer with a Print-Job request.
Okay, what are the fatal holes in these proposals?