JMP Mail Archive: Re[4]: JMP> jmJobState and jmJobStateReasonsTC [ISSUE: A

Re[4]: JMP> jmJobState and jmJobStateReasonsTC [ISSUE: A

Bill Wagner (bwagner@digprod.com)
Wed, 28 May 1997 11:23:17 -0400

Tom,

Quite so. Yet I would not put reflecting job state in the same class
as requiring the ability to implement a reset. That is, it is not
reasonable to require that a printer implement a given set of states,
only to report on the states that it does implement. I take this as
the intent of Ron's suggestion and believe it to be most appropriate.

Bill Wagner, Osicom/DPI


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Re[2]: JMP> jmJobState and jmJobStateReasonsTC [ISSUE: A
Author: Tom Hastings <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com> at Internet
Date: 5/28/97 2:07 AM

Bill,

You are forgetting the prtGeneralReset object in the Printer MIB
which is an enum.

There are a few values that are mandatory and the Conformance
in the back explicitly lists which values are mandatory.

So we have the same situation for the JMP.

Tom

At 11:47 05/27/97 PDT, Bill Wagner wrote:
> I certainly can agree. I was rather wondering about all the
> discussion. It was my understanding that objects can be mandatory, not
> values of the object variable.
>
> Bill Wagner, Osicom/DPI
>
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
>Subject: Re: JMP> jmJobState and jmJobStateReasonsTC [ISSUE: Are ther
>Author: JK Martin <jkm@underscore.com> at Internet
>Date: 5/27/97 2:16 PM
>
>
>Ron,
>
>> The object jmJobState should be mandatory. All possible enums for this
>> object must be reported if implemented and available to the agent. (I
>> sent another email on this subject with more info earlier today.)
>>
>> Does this make more sense?
>
>Yes! I like your wording. Can everyone else agree to this?
>
> ...jay
>
>