It looks like the object jmResourceName is more confusing than
descriptive. It is not intended to be the name of the resource
but is to be used for resources that require a string to be
returned. For example, fileName(3) and documentName(4) are
resources that cannot be represented by a numeric value. In
this case jmResourceAmount would be zero and the actual value
of the resource is presented in jmResourceName. (I believe
that this was discussed in last weeks meeting after you left
for the airport.)
In the case of a numeric value jmResourceName would be a
string of zero length. Use of the object as a name of the
resource in this case was agreed to be removed in the meeting
last week.
To eliminate some of this confusion the jmResourceName object
name should be changed to something like jmResourceStringValue.
Can anyone suggest a better name?
Ron Bergman
Dataproducts Corp.
rbergma@dpc.com
(805)578-4421
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Harry wrote:
One thing I'm finding is that Resource Name seems to be redundant
with information that should already be in the Printer MIB. I wonder
how useful resource name is. If we're trying to name a resource like
OutputBin (3) "Big Bin" - then the name is surely in the printer MIB
and a server implementation would not be representing this resource.
If we're trying to get fancy and say MediaType (Paper) "Hillary's
Pink LetterHead", I really doubt any accounting application will
be this sensitive. I think a Paper enum (Grade-A, Grade-B etc.)
for charging purposes is more practical.
Anyone else vie for eliminating Resource Name?
Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems.