IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> OPS - Minor issues for the Set Jo

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> OPS - Minor issues for the Set Jo

Re: IPP> OPS - Minor issues for the Set Job and Printer operations spec

From: Michael Sweet (mike@easysw.com)
Date: Fri Feb 25 2000 - 07:28:13 EST

  • Next message: Manros, Carl-Uno B: "IPP> ADM - Spring cleaning has begun"

    "Hastings, Tom N" wrote:
    > ...
    > So should we define a Resubmit-Job operation? We had one in ISO DPA,
    > but it is really hard to implement when the target is a different
    > Printer (on a different host), since the Printer has to become a
    > client and submit the Job object to another Printer (probably using
    > the Print-Job or Create-Job/Send-Document) and mirroring the
    > responses back to the original client in the Resubmit-Job response.
    >
    > Comments?

    I'm not sure that "resubmit-job" is the right name; for persistent
    jobs (when the files are still around), I'd expect a "resubmit" to
    try printing a previous job (like the current "restart-job" operation
    does.) I think "move-job" would be less confusing.

    As for the issue of moving a job to a remote IPP server, I think we
    can restrict movement to the same server, e.g. moving a job from
    port 1 to port 3 on a parallel print server, or (in the case of CUPS)
    moving from one queue to another. Redirection to a different server
    opens up a whole host of issues that the current IPP specs don't
    cover.

    With that said, if set-job-attributes allows the job-printer-uri
    to be changed, but only to another URI on the same server, then the
    only issue is if the job-id attribute would change. The current
    IPP spec only requires the job-id to be unique for each printer
    object, so potentially that might be an issue (it isn't for CUPS,
    nor IIRC for the HP JetDirect IPP servers) One (simple) solution
    is to return the job-uri and job-id attributes in the response
    data from set-job-attributes all the time; the client would then
    be responsible for using the new URI and ID in the future?

    [I'm just trying to avoid yet-another-extension-operation in CUPS]

    -- 
    ______________________________________________________________________
    Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products                  mike@easysw.com
    Printing Software for UNIX                       http://www.easysw.com
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 25 2000 - 07:31:23 EST