IPP Mail Archive: Re: JMP> Re: IPP> MOD JobState suggestion

Re: JMP> Re: IPP> MOD JobState suggestion

Tom Hastings (hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com)
Thu, 5 Jun 1997 15:02:32 PDT

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Robert Herriot: "Re: IPP> printer-resolution standard values retrograded"
Previous message: Randy Turner: "Re: IPP>PRO - Print by reference"

At 09:57 06/05/97 PDT, Harry Lewis wrote:
>I don't want to begin making the diagram too complex.
>
>>> +--------->----------+------>------+--> canceled(7)
>>> | | |
>>> +---> pending(3) -------> processing(5) -------> completed(9)
>>> | ^ ^ \ |
>>> --->+ | | +------------> aborted(8)
>>> | v v / |
>>> +---> held(4) stopped(6) |
> | | |
> +--------->----------+------>------+
>
>I only want to assure that the state diagram does not give the impression that,
>to cancel or abort a job, the flow has to be back through processing.
>
>> +--> canceled(7)
>> /
>> +---> pending(3) ----> processing(5) -----+----> aborted(8)
>> | ^ ^ \
>>--->+ | | +--> completed(9)
>> | v |
>> +---> held(4) processing-stopped(6)
>
>
>What was wrong with my proposal?
>
>> +--> canceled(7)
>> /
>> +---> pending(3) ----> processing(5) ---+-+----> aborted(8)
>> | ^ ^ | \
>>--->+ | | | +--> completed(9)
>> | v v |
>> +---> held(4) processing-stopped(6) |
>> | | |
>> +--------------------+---------+
>>
>
>>>> Harry <<<
>
>

It shows state transitions that are very unlikely:

held -> aborted
held -> completed
processing-stopped -> completed

and it doesn't show pending -> canceled

Next message: Robert Herriot: "Re: IPP> printer-resolution standard values retrograded"
Previous message: Randy Turner: "Re: IPP>PRO - Print by reference"