Subject: JMP> Re: Further Clarifications on counting

From: Harry Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 16:15:55 -0500

Tom, I agree with your name recommendation...

>>How about changing the name from currentCopyNumber to stackedCopyNumber,
instead of sheetCompleteCopyNumber?

... as long as no one gets the impression that it can only represent the number
of STACKED (i.e. completed) copies. The name is less important than the
definition and I like your name because it is shorter. We could even use a name
like copyCounter and just define it carefully.

  You had another question...

>>Also, why can't the value of stackedCopyNumber be 0 before the first
sheet of the first copy is stacked, instead of -1 or -2?

It could be zero. We thought a - integer was more in keeping with the way we've
done things in the past that basically have no valid value. Maybe Ira can help
us here.

Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems

---------------------- Forwarded by Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM on 12/02/97 01:51 PM
 ---------------------------

[email-masked] on 12/02/97 01:45:32 PM
Please respond to [email-masked] @ internet
To: [email-masked] @ internet, Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@ibmus
cc: [email-masked] @ internet
Subject: Re: Further Clarifications on counting

At 11:23 12/02/1997 PST, Harry Lewis wrote:
>There is ambiguity in our definition of attributes like
>impressionsCompletedCurrentCopy and currentCopyNumber in terms of how to
>synchronize them. Basically, the first is a trailing edge function, the
second
>is leading edge. This results in undefined states between the last impression
>of a copy and the first impression of the next copy.

In other words, if the currentCopyNumber advanced as the device starts
to work on the next copy, but the impressionsCompletedCurrentCopy remained
at the number of impressions in that copy, it would look like the new copy
had done a whole bunch of impressions at once.

So both attributes need to be changed on the same event as you point out.

>
>I would like to rename currentCopyNumber to sheetCompleteCopyNumber and make
>sure the definition clearly points out that all "currentCopy" attributes
>trigger off the SAME event, which is basically a sheet stacking. The
>sheetCompleteCopyNumber should start with a value of -1 or -2 to indicate it
>has no meaning until at least one sheet has stacked. When the sheet stacks
then
>the values impressionsCompletedCurrentCopy = 2 and sheetCompleteCopyNumber
= 1
>make sense. The sheetCompleteCopyNumber should always refer to the copy
number
>of the last sheet stacked and never point forward to some future copy
which is
>being worked on.

Sounds good.

How about changing the name from currentCopyNumber to stackedCopyNumber,
instead of sheetCompleteCopyNumber?

Also, why can't the value of stackedCopyNumber be 0 before the first
sheet of the first copy is stacked, instead of -1 or -2?

So the possible values for each are through time:

   stackedCopyNumber  impressionsCompletedCurrentCopy

   0                  0
   1                  1
   1                  2
   1                  3
   2                  1
   2                  2
   2                  3

The last values stay that way until the job is deleted.

>
>Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
>
>