[lsb-discuss] Questions on standardizing "IJS"

Banginwar, Rajesh rajesh.banginwar at intel.com
Thu Aug 3 14:54:02 PDT 2006

>-----Original Message-----
>From: lsb-discuss-bounces at lists.freestandards.org [mailto:lsb-discuss-
>Well, the problem here is how to incorporate it into the LSB. From what
>I understand (and my understanding is a moving target) that we're
>to standardize APIs and we need both documentation on the API and tests
>to make sure the API is included in the distro.
>How do I test a wire protocol? I need one end or the other of IJS
>implemented in the OS or I'll end up writing both ends and just proving
>to myself that pipes work, right? I think I need some sort of
>The work I've done is usually to standardize a library. Now IJS happens
>to be a protocol, and I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around
>I'd insure it's included in the LSB without having something around
>Till said, "Standardizing on GhostScript and foomatic-rip in LSB 3.2 is
>no problem, as they are part of all major distros," but it is a problem
>because ghostscript and foomatic-rip aren't APIs, really. And
>ghostscript is huge and I'm not going to try to define its behavior. I
>just want to make sure that I can write an IJS server that's accessed

Instead of requiring ghostscript in LSB specification, does it make
sense to just require it (or any other implementation providing IJS) for
testing? LSB will basically expect IJS and as it stands today, most
distro basically will provide it through GS and hence satisfy LSB. Does
this make sense?



>If you have any other suggestions, please let me know.
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Petrie, Glen [mailto:glen.petrie at eitc.epson.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 1:56 PM
>>To: Fujinaka, Todd; lsb-discuss at freestandards.org
>>Subject: RE: [lsb-discuss] Questions on standardizing "IJS"
>>IJS is not exclusive to or requires GhostScript.   Applications and/or
>>services can use an IJS client to directly communicate with IJS
>>This is true for resource limit solutions where Ghostscript would be
>>large.   So I believe it is wrong to exclusively tie IJS to
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: lsb-discuss-bounces at lists.freestandards.org
>>[mailto:lsb-discuss-bounces at lists.freestandards.org] On Behalf Of
>>Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 10:23 AM
>>To: lsb-discuss at freestandards.org
>>Subject: [lsb-discuss] Questions on standardizing "IJS"
>>IJS is a transfer protocol for raster page images. Currently it's used
>>as a way to get data out of ghostscript. (Ghostscript is basically a
>>data converter that takes in Postscript or PDF and outputs various
>>formats.) IJS is a standard that developed out of an HP transfer
>>protocol for printing, and is used by HP, as well as foomatic and
>>raster printing implementations.
>>I'm trying to figure out what "we're adding IJS to the LSB" means
>>technically. IJS is currently available on major distros because it's
>>implemented in ghostscript, and I can write a test program to make
>>ghostscript outputs the proper data to an IJS "server". So does that
>>mean we're requiring ghostscript? IJS uses pipes and stdin/stdout, so
>>there's no way to query a server for a generic implementation.
>>I'm thinking opvp is in the same boat.
>>My only suggestion is that I write a test that exercises ghostscript
>>make sure it can handle ijs and opvp output, and would like to hear if
>>that's a valid solution.
>>lsb-discuss mailing list
>>lsb-discuss at lists.freestandards.org
>lsb-discuss mailing list
>lsb-discuss at lists.freestandards.org

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list