JMP Mail Archive: Re: JMP> jmJobState and jmJobStateReasonsTC [ISSUE: Are ther

Re: JMP> jmJobState and jmJobStateReasonsTC [ISSUE: Are ther

Tom Hastings (hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com)
Wed, 28 May 1997 02:07:00 PDT

At 10:14 05/27/97 PDT, Harry Lewis wrote:
>Good catch, Jay. Pending should certainly not have been removed from the
>mandatory list of job States. I assume this is just a slip-up. Tom, will you
>please confirm?

I thought that we had agreed that an output device that doesn't
queue and doesn't spool might not be forced to have a pending
state for jobs, if the jobs are not delayed in any way. As Peter
Zehler points out, a non-queueing, non-spooling printer might
still want to have a pending state, if is can be for a user-visible
length of time. But such an implementation should not be forced
to have such as state, ok?

But if there is any kind of delay between when a job is submitted
and it is started to be processed, then a pending state is required
for the jobs. Thats the meaning of Conditionally Mandatory.

>
>>What happened to "pending" as a mandatory job state? I certainly hope
>>we don't relegate this important state to the "Conditionally Mandatory"
>>realm.
>
>>> The current draft lists processing, needsAttention, canceled, and completed
>>> as Mandatory. Since needsAttention has gone away, that leaves three
>>> states as mandatory: processing, canceled, and completed. Since we added
>>> aborted, I assume that aborted should be added to the mandatory list.
>
>
>Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
>
>