[65] in Enterprise Print Delivery Team
Documenting & Comparing Architectural Models
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David F. Lambert)
Tue Feb 8 08:36:35 2000
Message-Id: <10002081337.AA20061@MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 00 08:11:02 EST
From: "David F. Lambert" <LAMBERT@mitvma.mit.edu>
To: Enterprise Printing Delivery Project Team <printdel@MIT.EDU>
Mary Ellen,
If you haven't started thinking about documenting and organizing the
various architectural models, please begin to do so. This work/document
should allow us to easily describe the various models we've identified
and evaluated. Additionally, it would be useful if the format allowed
us to easily compare one model vs another - available functions/features,
dis/advantages, etc.
Currently, I think we've talked about the following models:
1) Current central mainframe AFP Service and APS:
- manage legacy print queues and printers (AFP)
- manage new print queues and network attached printers such as EP1
2a) Barr Systems or InfoPrint Manager:
- manage legacy print queues and printers (AFP)
- manage new print queues and network attached printers such as EP1
- transform internal print datastreams from one type to another
2b) Barr Systems or InfoPrint Manager:
- manage legacy print queues and printers (AFP)
- manage new print queues and network attached printers such as EP1
- do NOT use transformation; print to either a Postscript or AFP
printer as appropriate
2c) Barr Systems or InfoPrint Manager
- manage legacy print queues
- manage new print queues and new datastreams (Postscript)
- use multi-datastream printers such as Xerox; implies no need
to perform transformations
2d) Barr Systems or InfoPrint Manager and APS
- manage legacy print queues and printers (AFP)
- APS manages new print queues and network attached printers; same as
today
