IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Re: IPP- Printer state

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Re: IPP- Printer state

Re: IPP> Re: IPP- Printer state

Jay Martin (jkm@underscore.com)
Mon, 16 Mar 1998 20:46:44 -0500

Yes, I suppose your summary is correct, Tom. However, I get
the feeling Puru is asking about an embedded server implementation,
one in which the IPP server is embedded within the printer.

If this is true, then the error return should be the infamous
"too busy" error code, the one that Randy is working on (I believe).

...jay

----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- JK Martin | Email: jkm@underscore.com --
-- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
-- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
-- Hudson, NH 03051-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Hastings wrote:
>
> At 12:04 03/12/1998 PST, Puru Bish wrote:
> >
> >Thanks, Tom for clarifying the issue.
> >
> >I still have a question - should an IPP server behave the same
> >way even when it does not spool any job?
>
> You mean what should an IPP Printer object implemented in a server
> that does not spool jobs, but forwards jobs onto a single device directly
> (perhaps using IPP or some other device protocol), but the device
> to which it forwards jobs is shutdown?
>
> I would think that the following response might be the best:
>
> The server would reject the Create-Job and return the error code:
> 'server-error-service-unavailable'.
> Then the client could query the Printer's "printer-state" and see 'stopped'
> and the Printer's "printer-state-reasons" and see 'error-shutdown'.
>
> Do others agree?
>
> Tom
>
> >
> >-PB
> >
> >>From hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com Wed Mar 11 17:57:09 1998
> >
> >>Yes, the Printer object implemented in a server object does accept the
> >>job even though the device is powered down.
> >>
> >>And the requester MAY get an indication that there is a problem,
> >because
> >>the job's OPTIONAL "job-state-reason" attribute that MAY be returned in
> >the
> >>Print-Job response containing the value: 'printer-stopped'
> >>(or 'printer-stopped-partly' in the case that only some of the fan-out
> >>printers are stopped). Unfortunately, the requeseter will NOT get this
> >>indication in the response, if the IPP Printer object does not
> >implement
> >>the OPTIONAL "job-state-reasons" attribute.
> >>
> >>The client can then query the Printer's "printer-state"
> >>and "printer-state-reasons" attribute and see that the "printer-state"
> >>is 'stopped' and the "printer-state-reasons" is 'error-shutdown'
> >>('warning-shutdown' if only some of the fan-out printers are shutdown).
> >>
> >>
> >>The explanation of the 'stopped' state on page 89 of the Model document
> >>says (in its entirity of two paragraphs):
> >>
> >>'5' 'stopped': If a Printer receives a job (whose required resources
> >are
> >>ready) while in this state, such a job SHALL transit into the pending
> >state
> >>immediately. Such a job SHALL transit into the processing state only
> >after
> >>some human fixes the problem that stopped the printer and after jobs
> >ahead
> >>of it complete printing. The "printer-state-reasons" attribute SHALL
> >>contain at least one reason, e.g. media-jam, which prevents it from
> >either
> >>processing the current job or transitioning a pending job to the
> >processing
> >>state.
> >>
> >>Note: if a Printer controls more than one output device, the above
> >>definition implies that a Printer is stopped only if all output devices
> >are
> >>stopped. Also, it is tempting to define stopped as when a sufficient
> >>number of output devices are stopped and leave it to an implementation
> >to
> >>define the sufficient number. But such a rule complicates the
> >definition
> >>of stopped and processing. For example, with this alternate definition
> >of
> >>stopped, a job can move from idle to processing without human
> >intervention,
> >>even though the Printer is stopped.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Does the Model document need any futher clarification?
> >>
> >>Tom
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >______________________________________________________
> >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> >
> >