Harry,
> ...why doesn't 808 get "managed out" by 801? If the tray is put back in
> "full" the final state of the alert table will just be "powerUp". If
> the tray is put back in empty, then 801 would get managed out by 808.
Hey, good point. If the tray gets pulled, then the printer can't
honestly say the tray is empty. So, let's come up with a slightly
different (but more accurate) example.
Since you're not biting on the mandatory Alert Table size issue, ;-)
then let's consider a more accurate situation...however, it still
revolves around a severely limited Alert Table size:
1. Printer is powered on: "powerUp (503)" alert inserted as the first
entry in the Alert Table.
2. Printer starts processing a print job, but a jam occurs during
printing: "jam (8)" alert added to the Alert Table.
3. User comes along and opens one of the covers to clear the jam:
"coverOpen (3)" alert must be added to the Alert Table, but...
THE ALERT TABLE IS FULL, etc...
That is, opening the cover does not automatically negate the jam
condition.
Harry, please help me out by explaining this statement:
> I'm not arguing for a 2 entry alert table - I'm just not sure I
> believe the alert table needs to be a guaranteed size in order to
> be useful.
If a mgmt app can't trust the Alert Table to contain all existing
problem descriptions (ie, critical alerts), then how can the Alert
Table be useful?
Given, if the mgmt app polls the printer at a fairly high rate,
then perhaps the mgmt app can believe that it won't miss the insertion
of a new alert. But I wouldn't bet money on that approach.
Can you shed some light on what kinds of problem areas and scenarios
would find the Alert Table useful?
...jay