JMP Mail Archive: Re: JMP> Persistence and Table management

Re: JMP> Persistence and Table management

Tom Hastings (hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com)
Fri, 9 May 1997 16:45:00 PDT

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Tom Hastings: "Re: JMP> Straw vote request: interest in splitting the Job"
Previous message: Bill Wagner: "Re: JMP> Straw vote request: interest in splitting the Job"
Maybe in reply to: Harry Lewis: "JMP> Persistence and Table management"

I agree that the tables should (recommendation) become empty after the
persistence time period has elapsed. However, the persistence
objects are only minimums, so its not required that the tables become
empty.

When the tables are empty jmGeneralOldestActiveIndex shall be 0, since
an empty table is just a special case of no active jobs.

So an application that is monitoring active jobs or is accounting jobs,
needs to first check jmGeneralOldestActiveIndex for a 0 value, on each
poll cycle.

Tom

At 17:42 05/08/97 PDT, Harry Lewis wrote:
>We have persistence defined for JobID, JobState and JobAccounting tables.
>Suppose the printer has been idle for longer than the largest persistence
>value... what do we expect the tables to look like? Will they be empty? Or
>should some minimum number of jobs always be in the tables? Or is it up to the
>implementation? I suggest that there is really no problem with "empty" tables -
>and indeed, we can't prevent them on initialization. I just want to bring this
>out for anyone who may be considering applications target
>at the Job MIB.
>
>Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
>
>

Next message: Tom Hastings: "Re: JMP> Straw vote request: interest in splitting the Job"
Previous message: Bill Wagner: "Re: JMP> Straw vote request: interest in splitting the Job"
Maybe in reply to: Harry Lewis: "JMP> Persistence and Table management"