Dennis Carney wrote:
>>>> I think that these ideas are good ones. However, I wonder why we didn't do
> anything about this before. In fact, in 2911, it is specifically called
> out that we purposely didn't handle this situation (2911, section 3.2.6.1:
> "There is no mechanism to allow for the next 'M' jobs after the first 'N'
> jobs."). Does anyone remember whether there was a good reason this issue
> was sidestepped?
> ...
I dunno, however along with your comments I'd also like to bring up
another gap in the current spec for Get-Jobs - you can't get a list
of *all* jobs (both completed and not-completed). While we are
extending the Get-Jobs operation, it would be nice to add an "all"
keyword for "which-jobs".
(why do I suddenly feel like a politician adding an ammendment to
a law???)
--
______________________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products mike at easysw.com
Printing Software for UNIX http://www.easysw.com