Micah Cowan wrote:
An interesting idea that Tony Lewis came up with was the ability to send
Wget an interrupt (Ctrl-C), bringing up an interactive mode that allows
one to modify configuration on-the-fly. He told me about it in response
to an issue report I filed suggesting that Wget allow users the option
to skip the current file on interrupt, rather than quit completely; or
to exit gracefully (for instance, by completing any outstanding -k
conversions). That core functionality is expected to go in at some point
for 1.12, but probably not the config-altering; that might be easier to
put in for the "snazzier" re-envisioning of Wget, though.
        That was one of my 'less elegant' methods BUT -- I didn't
 think of the "special "re-input" mode part.  I would carefully
consider using control-C -- that has other defined semantics.
But, aren't the SIGUSR[12] sorta intended for situations like that?
Sorta like the idea.

        I STRONGLY suggest and a windows product (if you have a
win-machine around) "Teleport Pro" (httpish all of you could "test/try"
out the windows util I've had for ages that does most everything
wget does, and, mostly, more.  Program is called "Teleport Pro" by
http://www.tenmax.com.  They have "demo" a demo version, and their
upgrade policy has been great (bought once, been getting updates
for ~4-5 years)...

        It has lots of features I'd love to see in 'wget' (the GUI is
nice, but would defeat the command-line strength of wget.  Am just
looking at the "fetch" oriented features -- auto-slowdown for slow
websites; Up to 10 threads at a time (which will be limited if they
are all to one slow website) and "domain dispersal" (meaning if your
fetch includes multiple sites, it will disperse simultaneous queries
in order to not overload 1 site.

        It's *excellent* for what it does (but I use wget more often
as I'm in the command line more often).

        The two utils are roughly the same speed in most cases, but
if you are accessing a slow site that spiders to one or more other
sites, TP will likely win, as it will domain-disperse the requests.

Anyway...plugins, eh?...not sure how wondering that would be for
some of the desired extensions, but you've already hinted at some
of those difficulties.

Reply via email to