home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Submitted-by: atkinson@cmf.nrl.navy.mil
-
- % Submitted-by: duke@pyuxv.cc.bellcore.com (Duke Robillard)
- %
- % Excerpts from
- % POSIX 1003.7a Printing Small Group Minutes, October 21-24, 1991
-
- % The meeting started with a review of last quarter's work. At the
- % last meeting, the functionality of Palladium and lp CLI's was merged
- % into a new set of commands, all starting with the prefix "xp." This
- % work was brought into question. There were concerns that POSIX
- % shouldn't invent new interfaces. The widespread acceptance of OSF's
- % DME product, including USL's recent announcement regarding the ACE
- % iniative seemed to mitigate the concern about Palladium's limited
- % distribution, since it is part of DME. This facts, along with the
- % lack of an advocate for lp, led to the abandonment of the xp commands
- % and a return of Palladium's pd commands.
-
- This is distressing. I just this morning got an email note from one
- of the users of Athena at MIT who said that Palladium had so many
- problems that it isn't even in wide use at MIT and that BSD's lpr
- protocol is in wider use. I've urged him to post his comments
- directly to this list since I don't feel comfortable quoting email to
- news without permission. That some other organisation chooses
- a technology without sufficient actual experience should not cause
- POSIX to make the same mistake.
-
- % If 1003.7a is going to meet its ballot date goals, the quesion of
- % whether to use lp, pd, a new command set, or some mixture of these
- % must be decided for the final time at the next meeting. The printing
- % small group urges anyone with an interest in this to come to Irvine,
- % California for the January 13-17 POSIX meeting, or to send written
- % proposals or arguments.
-
- Well it is largely out of 1003.7a's hands whether to standardise lp(1)
- because it has already been done as part of 1003.2's efforts. If
- what is meant is the question of standardising the historical user
- interface commands (lpadmin/lpstat/lpr/lpq), then the clear choice
- that USERS want is to standardise existing practice. The trade rag
- UNIX TODAY had an article this week about the desires of users that
- makes interesting reading.
-
- % The next debate was about which API to use. There was some
- % discussion about adopting Tivoli's "objcall" interface from the DME.
- % No one was very familiar with it, but it seemed to be a lower level
- % interface, designed for general object management rather than
- % printing. Since the SVR4's lp system doesn't have an API, this was
- % really a debate about which level of Palladium API to use.
-
- Pity. There isn't sufficient experience with any API to standardise
- one. It should be left unstandardised for the present rather than
- adopting technology that hasn't been widely used and for which there
- is currently insufficient experience.
-
- % The high-level interface ("API") was eliminated first, because of its
- % limited value added over just calling the CLI. The low-level
- % interface ("pdlib + RPC/IDL") was also elimnated because of its close
- % ties to a specific RPC mechanism. The middle-level interface ("SPI")
- % was selected. It allows developers to write new CLIs and GUIs, but is
- % still manipulating the ISO print objects. This interface won't insure
- % interoperability, but 1003.7 is counting on its managed object
- % definitions to do that.
-
- Great. Even 1003.7 says that their invented technology "won't insure
- interoperability" and the lack of experience means that no one can know
- if it will even work correctly.
-
- % Which command set: pd*, lp*, or some mix. A debate & vote
- % Monday during the 1003.7 plenary.
-
- Go with something from the set lpadmin/lpstat/lprm/lpq all of which
- have lots of implementation experience, are widely implemented in
- historical systems, are known to work, and are widely known to users
- and administrators at present.
-
- % Review and update CLI section of draft, particularly rationale
- % & test assertions. Decide on required vs optional commands
-
- Do you mean "command line interface" ?? If so, see comments above.
-
- Please note that I'd find optional Palladium commands less
- objectionable if the conventional commands (see above) were made
- mandatory.
-
- % Review and update SPI section of draft. Work on SPI
- % test assertions.
-
- What is meant by SPI ??
-
- % Address 1003.6 (POSIX Security) concerns.
-
- Please contact folks in 1003.6 in this regard. The problems in the
- trusted systems field are not widely understood outside practioners
- and by coordinating early much grief can be avoided. Also please
- examine the current 1003.6 draft which is out for balloting.
-
- % Address Internationalization concerns.
-
- This should at least include being certain that 7/8/16/32 bit wide
- characters will work with whatever is devised since those widths
- are all used in ISO standards (including 2DIS 10646).
-
- % Additions to ISO Print Objects
-
- What is meant here ??
-
-
- Randall Atkinson
- atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 26, Number 25
-
-