RESEND: IPP> OPS - Redirect-Job (a ka Move-Job) included in Job a nd Printer Admin (Set2) spec

RESEND: IPP> OPS - Redirect-Job (a ka Move-Job) included in Job a nd Printer Admin (Set2) spec

RESEND: IPP> OPS - Redirect-Job (a ka Move-Job) included in Job a nd Printer Admin (Set2) spec

Hastings, Tom N hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com
Tue Jul 18 16:27:13 EDT 2000


I'm resending this lost message.

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N 
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 14:49
To: 'kugler at us.ibm.com'
Cc: Michael Sweet; ipp at pwg.org
Subject: RE: IPP> OPS - Redirect-Job (a ka Move-Job) included in Job and
Printer Admin (Set2) spec


See my answers preceded by TH>

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: kugler at us.ibm.com [mailto:kugler at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 14:22
To: Hastings, Tom N
Cc: Michael Sweet; ipp at pwg.org
Subject: RE: IPP> OPS - Redirect-Job (a ka Move-Job) included in Job and
P rinter Admin (Set2) spec




Tom wrote:

>We didn't want to introduce the Server as an object for the same reason
that
>we didn't want to introduce the output device as an object.  It wasn't
>necessary for our simple client-server protocol.
>
Are "server" and Non-Leaf Printer related?

TH> I don't think so.  A server could have several levels of Printer object,
i.e., Non-Leaf and Leaf Printers.  But a Non-Leaf Printer could be on a
server, while the Leaf Printer could be on an output device.  Also an output
device could have both Non-Leaf and Leaf Printers for itself.

>For the Redirect-Job, the "redirection-printers-supported" Printer
Attribute
>is all that is necessary for a Printer to indicate to which other Printers
>it is willing to redirect output.  We don't need to introduce a Server
>object to help with the simple Redirect-Job that redirects jobs among
>Printers on the same server.
>
Then I don't think you need to introduce a little 's' "server", either.
It's an implementation detail whether or not the
"redirection-printers-supported" are on the same server.  You only need to
specify the protocol.  If an implementation can meet the spec, it doesn't
matter how it does it.  You don't need to specify an architecture involving
a "server".  (If there is a reason that "server" is important, then I'm
still not getting it.)

TH> I think you are getting it.  We don't need to introduce the concept of
"server" at all for Redirect-Job.  All that is necessary is that a Printer
(object) be able to enumerate the Printers to which it is willing to
redirect a job.  A Printer indicates this list in the values of its
"redirection-printers-supported".

BTW, at the IPP WG meeting last week, we agreed to remove Redirect-Job
operation from the "Job and Printer Administrative Operations", and continue
this discussion (along with your two other proposals for Move-Job to any
Printer vs. getting the job back from a Printer).  Since there were no
issues with any of the other operations, they will remain and the spec will
go out for IPP WG Last call without Redirect-Job.

Actually, we did fix a problem with the Schedule-Job-After operation, so
that the job inherits the "job-priority" of the job it is being put after,
or the highest priority if it is being put at the beginning.

>Ok?
>
Not yet, sorry.

     -Carl

>Tom
>





More information about the Ipp mailing list