Classification:
Prologue:
Epilogue: Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
In my view, max number of jobs *cannot* be defined as the wrap point for
jmJobIndex!
>Issue 49 - Should we change the definition of the jmGeneralMaxNumberOfJobs
>to jmGeneralMaxJobIndex meaning the maximum value that the jmJobIndex object
>can have and the roll over to 1 happens for the next job received? Or add
>jmGeneralMaxJobIndex as another object in the General table? Then the
>monitoring application would know what the roll over limit would be. For
>agents that instrument servers or printers that use a job identifier of 0,
>the actual maximum number would be one more than the actual job identifier
>that the server or printer generates. So for LPD, the value of
>jmGeneralMaxJobIndex would by 1000, not 999.
The jmJobIndex is a large integer specifically to prevent identical ID's from
existing within any reasonable time window. If a printer can only hold
information about (say) 20 jobs and it wraps at 21, then there is a chance that
two different jobs may appear to have the same ID (1). A wrap at the max value
of a vary large integer will prevent this from occurring.
My opinion.