While we're at it, should we add a new Pause-Job operation along with the rest? This is one that has been mentioned as far back as 1997 as a candidate Job control op. I'd bet it's also in DPA Part 3 as a variant of "pdpause".
It is also hinted at in the current model doc: "Note: In order to keep the Hold-Job operation simple, such a request is rejected when the job is in the 'processing' or 'processing-stopped' states. If an operation is needed to hold jobs while in these states, it will be added as an additional operation, rather than overloading the Hold-Job operation." The primary difference between Pause-Job and Hold-Job would be that Pause-Job be applied to a Job in 'processing' state. Example usage: for interrupting a Job with a large number of copies in order to let a high-priority Job play through.
-Carl
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