> Was this what we were thinking? Or would changing the "multiplicity"
> capability of chLPDServer to "multiple" be easier. I'm not sure why
> we just didn't use "multiple", since this still does not preclude
> an implementation from still having separate row instances of
> chLPDServer. But at the same time, it saves redundant rows in the
> table when a printer only wants to expose very few queues, say just
> 2 or 3.
I believe we discussed this at the time, and it was a conscious
decision. As the comment at the beginning of the Channel Group
says, "channels are independent sources of print data." I take this
to mean one channel table entry, one independent source of print
Otherwise, you end up with multiple potential representations for
the same configuration. This increases client complexity and the
likelihood of clients not handling all alternatives correctly.
Besides, I can't see where you can really use this -- remember, if
two queues have different prtChannelCurrentJobCntlLangIndex,
prtChannelDefaultPageDescLangIndex, prtChannelState, or
prtChannelStatus values (which seems pretty likely), they need
> Would the scope of this change be possible given our current state
> of the document?
It would be a mistake to make the change.
:: David Kellerman Northlake Software 503-228-3383
:: email@example.com Portland, Oregon fax 503-228-5662