IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> New CUPS 1.1 beta and set-job-att

RE: IPP> New CUPS 1.1 beta and set-job-attributes extension [why not use "job-sheets"?]

From: Carl-Uno Manros (carl@manros.com)
Date: Tue Mar 21 2000 - 08:41:44 EST

  • Next message: Carl-Uno Manros: "IPP> ADM - IPP Phone Conference - 000322"

    Jay,

    My understanding is that Michael's statement was that he is not
    prepoared to make this kind of change as a last minute change to
    his current release. I did not interpret that as "it can never
    be done". Doing Ira's new objects instead would not have changed
    that I expect.

    However, it seems that this discussion isn't over yet.

    Carl-Uno

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org]On Behalf Of Jay
    > Martin
    > Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 5:19 AM
    > To: IPP Mailing List
    > Cc: McDonald, Ira
    > Subject: Re: IPP> New CUPS 1.1 beta and set-job-attributes extension
    > [why not use "job-sheets"?]
    >
    >
    > Would someone be interested in presenting a *short* (and I mean
    > SHORT) paper
    > on the Pros and Cons of "Collections" vs. "Objects" with respect to IPP?
    >
    > It would appear Michael Sweet has some compelling arguments for
    > his position,
    > particularly given the product his company has produced. That
    > is, when he says
    > the current state of IPP makes it difficult (impossible?) to
    > implement certain
    > key capabilities, doesn't that raise a big flag?
    >
    > If someone has already published a short paper, please forgive
    > me, and point
    > me to the document in the archives.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > ...jay
    >
    > PS: Keeping my long-held consistent view, "absorbing" anything
    > from ISO DPA
    > sends more than a modest shiver up my spine.
    >
    >
    > "McDonald, Ira" wrote:
    > >
    > > Hi Michael,
    > >
    > > Thanks. You added a voice to mine (the one out in this
    > > wilderness on recent IPP WG Telecons) saying that 'collections'
    > > were not really a 'simple' extension.
    > >
    > > I have grave reservations about ANY future point version of
    > > IPP making support for the 'collection' syntax mandatory.
    > > Even with the latest 'legacy friendly' encoding proposals
    > > from Bob Herriot (thanks Bob), I'm not a fan of 'collections'.
    > >
    > > In essence, 'collections' are 'poor man's objects'. I still
    > > haven't heard the compelling case for why we wouldn't just
    > > use REAL objects (for example 'Resource' object, in the ISO DPA
    > > 'document resource' sense of fonts, forms, logos, etc.).
    > >
    > > Cheers,
    > > - Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Sharp Labs America
    > > High North Inc
    > >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: Michael Sweet [mailto:mike@easysw.com]
    > > Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 7:33 PM
    > > To: Hastings, Tom N
    > > Cc: IPP Mailing List
    > > Subject: Re: IPP> New CUPS 1.1 beta and set-job-attributes extension
    > > [why not use "job-sheets"?]
    > >
    > > "Hastings, Tom N" wrote:
    > > > ...
    > > > Wouldn't it be simpler to use these values in CUPS, rather than
    > > > introducing two new Job Template attributes?
    > >
    > > 1. The PPE uses COLLECTIONS for this stuff
    > > 2. Collections are still being defined.
    > > 3. CUPS currently does not do anything with collections (it will
    > > store the raw data, but that is all)
    > > 4. Without collections the job-sheets attribute cannot support
    > > what CUPS needs to do.
    > >
    > > Given those things, it is unlikely in the EXTREME that we will
    > > change our design this close to a final release.
    > >
    > > It is *possible* that we can change the names of the attributes
    > > to "job-sheets-*", however I am concerned that we might step on
    > > future attributes. Possible names:
    > >
    > > job-sheets-supported
    > > job-sheets-start-default
    > > job-sheets-end-default
    > > job-sheets-start
    > > job-sheets-end
    > >
    > > At least that would be in line with the IPP spec, but that also
    > > means we must support "job-sheets" and "job-sheets-default". I'm
    > > not sure how we would map that given the ambiguity in the spec...
    > >
    > > Another possibility might be to overload the "name" value to use
    > > "start,end" for the "job-sheets" and "job-sheets-default" attributes,
    > > however that might break clients that try to compare them against
    > > the "job-sheets-supported" values.
    > >
    > > In any case, any change we make now CANNOT include support for the
    > > PPE spec.
    > >
    > > --
    > > ______________________________________________________________________
    > > Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products mike@easysw.com
    > > Printing Software for UNIX http://www.easysw.com
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 21 2000 - 08:42:41 EST