JMP Mail Archive: JMP> Collated/Uncollated

JMP> Collated/Uncollated

Harry Lewis (harryl@us.ibm.com)
Thu, 20 Nov 1997 12:26:36 -0500

I tried to send this a couple times... appoligize if older versions cat=
ch up
later.

There hasn't been a whole lot of discussion regarding my proposal (belo=
w) other
than Ron indicating he believes it should be accepted.

I would like to modify it slightly, in a manner which I believe better
accomplishes the goal of distinguishing between collated and uncollated=
copies
yet results in fewer changes to the Mib.

To put it as simply as I can, I propose to add

currentCopyNumber
currentDocumentNumber
copyType

and to keep

sheetsCompletedCurrentCopy
impressionsCompletedCurrentCopy
documentCopiesCompleted
jobCopiesCompleted

The example flows the same as before:

For a 3 impression job with a request for 3 copies.

Uncollated 3/3 (copyType =3D External Collation)
--------------

sheetsCompleted sheetsCompletedCurrentCopy currentCopyNumber
--------------- -------------------------- -----------------
1 1 1
2 1 2
3 1 3
4 2 1
5 2 2
6 2 3
7 3 1
8 3 2
9 3 3

Collated 3/3 (copyType =3D Internal Collation)
------------

sheetsCompleted sheetsCompletedCurrentCopy currentCopyNumber
--------------- -------------------------- -----------------
1 1 1
2 2 1
3 3 1
4 1 2
5 2 2
6 3 2
7 1 3
8 2 3
9 3 3

The reason for the change from currentSheetNumber and currentImpressonN=
umber is
that there may be several sheets in the paper path, (different) impress=
ions may
be ripping and printing at the same time etc. It's very hard to say whi=
ch is
the "currentImpression" or "currentSheet" but easier to say which is th=
e
current copy. It is easy to say which sheet has just completed (stacked=
).

Note that, while drivers should protect from this, it is theoretically =
possible
to mix collated and uncollated copies (try it with your favorite printe=
r...
it's fun!). At this point, attributes like current copy really break do=
wn. We
feel, rather then try and define even more attributes to handle this
pathological case we should just say behavior of the MIB, at this point=
, is
device specific.

Harry Lewis
=