IPP> Job-URI vs. Job-Id: How would you handle moving jobs?

IPP> Job-URI vs. Job-Id: How would you handle moving jobs?

Jim Walker walker at dazel.com
Tue Sep 9 16:21:24 EDT 1997


Jay Martin wrote:
> 
> Since the Job-Id approach implicitly uses the Printer-URL, then
> how would you handle moving jobs between Printers?  Wouldn't this
> present something of a showstopping problem?  How would the client
> keep track of the change in Job-Id, much less the change in Printer?
> 
> For printing systems using IPP, it would seem that the Job-URL
> approach would suffice quite nicely due to the inherent opacity
> of the job identification.
> 
> Comments?


Jay, I think that this is a very good question.  In our system,
jobs are independent of printers, and moving jobs is a simple
operation (from the client's perspective).  The "job identifier"
remains the same, the job is just directed to another printer.


I believe that by associating the job with the printer (by
identifying it with a <printer,ID> tuple) you would make
this problem very difficult.


Also,


> Robert Herriot wrote:
> 
> It seems to me that there are two solutions to this problem. Either
>    a) a job has a constant identification for its life or
>    b) an identification that changes when it moves.
> 
> In case a, it doesn't matter whether a job has a job-URI or a
> (printer-URI,job-Id), the same server manages the job for its duration
> regardless of the location of the job


I think that you are glossing over a subtle, but very important point,
here.  It is true that, if the job has a constant identification for
its life, the "same server manages the job ... regardless of the
location of the job".  HOWEVER, there is a difference, in my mind,
between having an independent job object referred to by an opaque
URL, and a (printer-URL,job-ID) tuple where the job is by definition
tied to that particular printer.  In the case of the former, the
job can be managed by a server that is independent of the printer
(cf, DAZEL).


> Case b may seem simpler because of the redirection that can
> be applied to Job-URI.  But this apparent simplicity hides the complexity
> of how long the forwarding-server keeps a record of a job that it no
> longer controls. The simplest solution for this case may be the same
> as for case a, namely the server keeps a forwarding record for the duration
> of the job.
> 
> I stand by my previous statements, that the cited advantages of a
> job-URI are based on speculation. I have not seen anyone provide enough
> detail for us to understand the full solution for the move-job
> problem.


I can point you to a print system that is in use today that uses
the concept of an independent job object (akin to a job-URL),
and it is successful in solving the move-job problem.  The job is
managed independent of the printer, making it very easy to move
the job, and retain its identity.


> I have no problem with a design that might make the solution of future
> problems easy as long as it doesn't affect the solution to current
> well-understood problems.


future problems solved today...
...walker



--
Jim Walker <walker at dazel.com>
System Architect/DAZEL Wizard
DAZEL Corporation, Austin, TX




More information about the Ipp mailing list
Our website uses cookies on your device to give you the best user experience. By using our website, you agree to the placement of these cookies. To learn more, read our privacy policy. Read Privacy Policy