>I think we also agreed that the agent could use any of the standard
>formats, if the job submitter didn't submit a jobsubmissionid, rather
>than constraining the agent to a particular format. So I deleted
>format 0. The 0 format is no longer the default format that the agent
>uses if the submitter didn't supply a jobsubmissionid. The agent is
>free to use any format. Ok?
No, This is not OK. We agreed the agent can use any scheme to derive the
jmJobSubmissionID, if not passed in, including URL's, jobOwner etc, if known.
But, if the agent does not use a unique format ID, there is a high probability
that the sequential part of the ID's will intersect - something which I think
should be avoided. Sequential ID's are, by definition, fairly local constructs.
Keeping format 0 for the agent prevents the agent from "stepping on" the local
id's of a server, for example, because the server will always be using some
format ID other than 0.
>When adding the jobOwner format, I assigned it to 0, rather than the
>end. It seems like a particularly useful and important format.
Formats will "come and go". I don't this the enum given to the format has any
significance in terms of indicating it's "importance".
>>There's a pretty big question in my mind exactly WHY we think JobOwner needs
>>to be part of a default format 0, especially since jmJobOwner is a mandatory
>>object in the Job Table. I only offer the following definition as a potential
>>compromise. I would prefer to keep format 0 as previously defined... basically
>>agent assigned.
>
>I agree that it would be a problem if the spec says that a job owner has
>to be part of the default format. That is why we got away from having
>a single default format, I thought. So now the agent is free to use any
>if the standard formats, not just the 0 format when the submitter doesn't
>submit an ID.
Here, we do agree. Format 0 was never supposed to be a "fixed" format, just
an enum that assured this ID was assigned by the agent. I thought I picked
up in Nashua that folks wanted JobOwner to be the primary choice if the agent
had to assign an ID. We can establish preferred conventions via FAQ, if this
would be useful, but format 0 is intended to be "open" for the agent to make
intelligent choices based on what information is available (given the absence
of a "legitimate" jmJobSubmissioID).
>Are you worrying that one client might not supply a job submission id
>for a particular job owner, but that same user from another client
>might. So that the second client might assign a sequence number that was
>the same as the agent assigned for the first one and thereby be a collision?
>
>That could happen with any of the formats, if the agent assigns
>the trailing number sometimes and the submitter does other times.
>
>Do we want to fix that?
>
>We could make separate format numbers for assigned by agent, versus
>assigned by the job submitter, for all the formats, thereby doubling
>the number of format numbers.
This really CAN'T happen with any format if the agent sticks to format 0.
That's the point. There is not need to double the number of format numbers!
Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems