I believe that having every client host get a notification message
if it has a job pending for a printer whenever that printer gets a
problem, cause a network problem when the queue gets long. Sure
such client can filter out the notifications and not both the user
who doesn't want them. But the simple filtering you propose
eliminates the need for the client to filter out the notification.
As an example, my default printer currently has 51 jobs in the queue,
because something is wrong with the printer. Sending out 51 notifications
to all users who are in the queue whenever the printer has (more) problems
will add to the network traffic.
Also clients don't need to filter out job start processing notifiation
when the user's job starts processing for those users that don't want
to be bothered with that notification.
So this mechanism makes it simpler for clients. They don't need to filter
at all.
However, we all agree that this simple filtering is a good add to
SENSE, so we can leave it at that.
Tom
At 08:33 12/08/1997 PST, Ron Bergman wrote:
>
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 11:52:57 -0800 (PST)
>From: Ron Bergman <rbergma@dpc.com>
>To: Jay Martin <jkm@underscore.com>
>Subject: Re: SENSE> New proposal for Server-based event filtering
>
>Jay,
>
>(Sorry so late for this reply. Im in Washington state and they changed
>the remote phone number and I could not get the new one until today.)
>
>Your proposal seems like a good addition to sense, but I am not convinced
>that it is really needed for IPP. I still do not believe that the
>combinations proposed by Tom will really be needed.
>
>But I also believe that there may be other situations (other than IPP)
>where the filtering may be useful.
>
> Ron
>
>
>
>
>