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.