With regard to the conversation below, I have assumed that "more than
one request" refers to sending more than one document in a print
request. I did not think that it referred to sending multiple operations
in a transmission. Though perhaps, this concept slid in when we
discussed having a "getAttributes" operation accompanying a "printJob"
operation in order to specify attributes to be in the result. I think that
we should not allow a transaction to have multiple operations.
Bob Herriot
> > 2) With respect to the first print job submission scenario you asked,
> > "has it been decided that a single IPP transaction can contain more
> > than one type of request?"
> > Answer: Herriot, Isaacson, Hastings and I agreed on this in early
> > discussions of the first IPP draft.
>> If you have a protocol wherein multiple operations are specified, each
> with
> a "state" dependency on the previous operation (meaning that the
> sequence of
> operations is part of the overall "stateful" request) then this could
> complicate
> things considerably; meaning, you might have to include some type of
> two-phase
> commit operation to verify that all of the operations in a particular
> transaction complete or none at all.
>> This may not have implications now if we have a very limited
> transaction/request
> set, but we will no doubt be extending this in the future. I'm not sure
> why
> a single request per transaction would be overly limiting in a first
> implementation
> of IPP.
>>>> Randy
>