Xref: utzoo comp.unix.wizards:22297 comp.unix.i386:5598 comp.unix.xenix:11894
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!pacbell!pacbell.com!mips!prls!pyramid!ctnews!mitisft!dold
From: dold@mitisft.Convergent.COM (Clarence Dold)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards,comp.unix.i386,comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: lpadmin(8) question
Message-ID: <1492@mitisft.Convergent.COM>
Date: 4 Jun 90 04:30:20 GMT
References: <453@van-bc.UUCP>
Organization: Convergent Technologies, San Jose, CA
Lines: 24

in article <453@van-bc.UUCP>, sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) says:

> Does this mean that there is nothing to stop you from doing this so don't do
> it?

> Or that lpsched is designed to pay attention to having multiple destinations
> some with the same physical device.

There is no 'guard' within the lp subsystem.  Two print jobs could provide
output to the same port simultaneously.

What you might do is have the differing models attached to device /dev/null,
as if they were remote printer models.  In the model, rather than a 
cat to stdout, invoke an lp job to a printer with an unused name.
We do this locally, with the default printer called "laser", a special model
for UNIX - WordPerfect called "WPlaser", and both of them feeding output to
a model called "RealLaser", which no one adresses directly.
This results in a little overhead in extra processes, but allows for any 
number of oddball printer models to be introduced transparently.
-- 
---
Clarence A Dold - dold@tsmiti.Convergent.COM            (408) 435-5293
               ...pyramid!ctnews!tsmiti!dold        FAX (408) 435-3105
               P.O.Box 6685, San Jose, CA 95150-6685         MS#10-007