Harry,
Convincing that we need to keep jmGeneralMaxNumberOfJobs as it is
independent of the wrap point.
So do we also need to add an object, say, jmGeneralMaxJobIndex,
for the wrap point as my second question in the issue asks?
For example, BSD LPR/LPD wraps at 999 back to 0.
That question will be the only part of Issue 49 unresolved.
Thanks,
Tom
At 09:05 04/01/97 PST, Harry Lewis wrote:
>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.
>>