Subject: IPP> Re: JMP> jmJobState and jmJobStateReasonsTC [ISSUE: Are ther

From: Harry Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 14:14:12 -0400

Even printers that don't spool or queue will typically "buffer" some number of
pages. Given the possibility of single page jobs... then some jobs can be
pending. I guess we should ask ourselves what it means to have a "mandatory"
state. Just because a state is Mandatory does not mean an implementation must
"force" jobs to enter that state. If that were so... I'd REALLY be in favor of
eliminating the NeedsAttention state! ;->

Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems

------- Forwarded by Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM on 05/27/97 11:59 AM ------

        [email-masked]
        05/27/97 11:51 AM
Please respond to [email-masked] @ internet

To: [email-masked] @ internet, [email-masked] @ internet
cc: [email-masked] @ internet
Subject: Re: JMP> jmJobState and jmJobStateReasonsTC [ISSUE: Are ther

If a simple output device implements IPP and doesn't queue or spool, wouldn't
the jobs in that output device never be in pending?  Such a device would
refuse acceptance of another job, while it was processing its current job.
That is why pending is conditionally mandatory in IPP and therfore also in
JMP.

Would it help to indicate that if an implementation queues or spools,
that it shall implement the 'pending' state jobs that are queued or spooled
but are not yet processing?

Tom