JMP> serviceOffline

JMP> serviceOffline

STUART at KEI-CA.CCMAIL.CompuServe.COM STUART at KEI-CA.CCMAIL.CompuServe.COM
Mon Aug 25 11:51:49 EDT 1997


     
Harry,


I personally think that deviceStopped is sufficient to cover all printer 
stoppage conditions including off-line.  So I don't think it is necessary to 
move serviceOffline.  Also, if serviceOffline means that the printer is 
off-line, it is well disguised in the DPA-ish description which I put for 
reference below.


serviceOffline
The service/document transform is off-line and accepting no jobs.  All pending 
jobs are put into the pendingHeld state.  This could be true if its input is 
impaired or broken.


Stuart


--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Stuart Rowley                              Kyocera Electronics, Inc. 
Network Product Development Mgr.           3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd. #105 
STUART at KEI-CA.ccmail.compuserve.com        Lafayette, CA 94549
510 299-7206                               Fax: 510 299-2489 
---------------------------------------------------------------------








______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: JMP> serviceOffline
Author:  INTERNET:harryl at us.ibm.com at CSERVE
Date:    8/22/97 12:15 PM






     
BACKGROUND -- In Redmond, we moved processingToStopPoint from job state reasons 
2 to job state reasons 1 as we agreed to use this reason to distinguish a 
CANCEL state where sheets might still be cleared from the paper path from a 
CANCEL operation that  has completed.
     
PROBLEM -- In prototyping, we find one other job state reason which we feel is 
useful enough to be migrated into the (mandatory) job state reasons 1 category. 
This reason is serviceOffLine.
     
CLARIFICATION --  First, I am seeking agreement from the JMP that using job 
state reason serviceOffLine is valid when the printer is off-line. (I know... 
we usually get really tied up whenever the word off-line is used in 
conversation). If so, do you agree that Off-line is a common, likely or 
significant enough condition to warrant becoming part of the "reasons 1" group.
     
PROPOSAL -- I'd like to propose this simple change be added to Tom's pending 
draft, if possible, so I'm asking for discussion and straw poll (assuming the 
Chair deems this appropriate).
     
Thanks.
     
Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems



More information about the Jmp mailing list