Tom, I support the "e-mail" conclusion in favor of changing STATE when the
CANCEL or ABORT is completed and associated attributes (ex. sheets used)
are at their final value.
>E-MAIL conclusion:
>>The e-mail discussion seems to favor changing the IPP and JMP semantics
>to "Trailing Edge Job State Transition" semantics, since many protocols
>use states to mean that the operation has finished all of its work.
>Also reducing polling seems to be more important than simplfying the Printer
>implementation and the job state transition diagram when legal operations
>are shown.
>>*******************************************************************
>We need to see if the rest of the IPP and JMP participants agree
>to change the spec to Traling Edge Job State Transition semantics.
>*******************************************************************
This has been discussed openly for a significant duration on JMP,
so I feel agreement has been reached there (unless someone objects).
Yes, we do need better IPP coverage of this topic.
You are correct ...
>Probably neither side would be happy with a compromise that complicates
>the state model by adding a new Job state: 'terminating' (the name
>used for the ISO DPA job state). Then the 'processing-to-stop-point' reason
>would not be needed for this.
I would see this as a late change and overly complex, at this point.
Harry Lewis