I am heavily working with the scan service these days.
So my note comes out of that effort.
But I think this is a rather general question after all.
A service is typically quite a complex object.
A name that identifies a service on the highest level would in many cases ease the management and debugging of functionality that deals with services.
And if I had more than one service in my scan service xml instance I'd prefer one to be the default (services have their own defaults, but a service itself cannot be the default within a services group).
I helped myself by adding a vendor extension (a simple attribute) to the ScanServices and ScanService objects.
I could even imagine to add an ID attribute to a ScanService object and an IDREF attribute to the ScanServices object.
But I can't really do that with vendor extensions.
Just wondering if other people also feel that a named service and a default reference to such a named service might improve the situation.
Regards
Norbert
Norbert Schade
Systems Engineer (printing)
Imaging Solutions
Conexant Systems, Inc.
201 Jones Road
Waltham, MA 02451
U.S.A.
Tel: 1-781-370-8929
Email: norbert.schade at conexant.com<mailto:norbert.schade at conexant.com>
Conexant E-mail Firewall (Conexant.Com) made the following annotations
---------------------------------------------------------------------
********************** Legal Disclaimer ****************************
"This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any unauthorized review, use or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. Thank you."
**********************************************************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20140127/dfa74ac8/attachment.html>