From: McDonald, Ira
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 1:01 PM
To: 'Michael Sweet'; McDonald, Ira
Subject: RE: IPP> OPS - 3 Options for Filters on Get-Job-Attributes
Thanks for your quick reply. I agree that #3 is the best choice.
The encoding safety of Tom Hastings' (Option #1) pretty simple
(ANDs and ORs) method using a new type of Group in the operation
SHOULD be fine. But Bob Herriot and I are somewhat concerned that
existing implementations MAY not be resilient to finding a new
(and unexpected) Group in a received Get-xxx operation request.
And there's a nice simplicity in taking LDAPv3 filter syntax
and using it verbatim.
A modest effort would be required to specify the canonical string
encoding of all IPP attribute syntaxes (not difficult - mostly
done already where they're used in the SLP/LDAP Printer Schema).
- Ira McDonald
From: Michael Sweet [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 11:17 AM
To: McDonald, Ira
Subject: Re: IPP> OPS - 3 Options for Filters on Get-Job-Attributes
"McDonald, Ira" wrote:
> Option 3 - new 'xxx-filter' operation attribute
> - use LDAP and SLP common string expression syntax (RFC 2254)
> - perfect compatibility with directory-enabled applications
> - full set of operators (approximate equivalence, presence,
> substring, etc.)
> - requires string encoding of all values (not IPP native)
Of the three choices, #3 would seem to be the best one to use in the
long run. I see some complications with the implementation of #1,
as it requires more complicated request generation and processing
code and is not as flexible as #3.
#2 uses collections, and my opinions on collections should be well
-- ______________________________________________________________________ Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products email@example.com Printing Software for UNIX http://www.easysw.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 25 2000 - 16:13:52 EDT