[cups.general] Groups of printers?

[henri]

I can see how groups of printers could be useful. However, you could  
just run different cups configurations on multiple servers.

If this all needs to run on one box then I suppose virtualization is  
an option.

I think groups make sense, they could make certain administrative  
tasks less complex. Although, this is a double edged sword. They also  
have to potential to make administration more complex?


> CUPS, of course, implements classes (fail-over or load-balancing  
> collections) of printers, but I wonder how many users and  
> administrators would find printer 'groups' useful - at the /printers  
> web page and in the configuration and in the logs? Of course, one  
> can search at that web page for the printer one wishes to see, and  
> one could even use the group names as a printer name prefix to  
> restrict the view by search, and have access controls to restrict  
> access. I think that to have explicit group access policies would be  
> useful, however. Printer classes are not groups; when one queues a  
> document to a class, one can't specify which on which printer of the  
> class the document is printed.