I agree with you that none of the attributes you listed are needed by an
accounting program. However, I think that they are useful for end
users and operators that are monitoring jobs. That is why I have
resisted your suggestion to change the name of the Resource Table to the
Accounting Table, since the contents of the table are for more purposes
than just accounting. I think that the name Attributes is more
appropriate, since the contents of the table include information that is not
of interest to accounting programs. I would think that
accounting programs would not be interested in any requested attributes,
not just the ones you listed. Furthermore, the consumed attributes
in the table are of interest to non-accounting programs before the job
is finished. The consumed attributes are dynamic, in that they start at
0 and count up, so even the consumed attributes are not used only by
accounting programs, but by monitoring programs that want to display the
progress of the job before the job completes. Ok?
By the way all of the attributes that you listed are the ones for
which we don't have separate attributes (or multiple entries) for
requested vs. consumed. In otherwords, the same entry is used for
both (and the requested and consumed value should be the same, so it
wasn't worth having two enums for each. See Ron Berman mail on this
subject.
Ok?
Tom
At 21:40 04/01/97 PST, Harry Lewis wrote:
>Classification:
>Prologue:
>Epilogue: Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
>
>I do not understand the need for requested values for any of the
>following "attributes" within the context of a resource accounting
>table such as we have defined.
>
>>Most attributes are either the requested value or the consumed (updated
>>as the job progresses), but not both. The only attributes that are both
>>requested/used are:
>
>>outputBinIndex*56
>>outputBinIndex*56
>>outputBinName*56
>>sides*56
>>documentFormatIndex*56
>>documentFormatEnum*56
>>physicalDeviceIndex*57
>>physicalDeviceName*57
>
>Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
>
>