On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Roth, Kevin P. wrote:

> I think all three of your proposed versions (A,B & C) should be supported.
> They all make sense.

I don't think we can support version A at the same time we support B/C.

> Also, don't forget that http uploads would need the exact same abilities
> (including sending multiple files to the same URL, such as
> http://some.site/posting.acceptor.php).

As this would be a pure application-side code change, this would indeed work
exactly the same for any of the supported protocols.

> It seems to me that this problem is very similar to the existing ability to
> specify alternative output filenames for downloaded files (except,
> obviously, in reverse).

I agree, it is indeed similar.

> I believe you currently allow the following:
>
> 1. curl -O http://some.url/some.file http://some.url/some.other.file
> -> Uses the remote site's filename in the Current-Working-Directory (CWD).

Not quite. We require one specific output option for each given download URL,
or it goes to stdout. So this command line would download the first file with
-O, and the second file would be sent to stdout. You would need two -O (or -o)
options to get both saved to local files.

We should also remember to support mixed uploads and downloads, by offering a
-T version that switches off upload. Like -T "" or something. So, to first
download one file then upload one file in a single command line, it could look
like this:

  curl -T "" -o file http://file.com -T uploadit -o result http://file.com

-- 
 Daniel Stenberg -- curl: been grokking URLs since 1998
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Dice.com.
Did you know that Dice has over 25,000 tech jobs available today? From
careers in IT to Engineering to Tech Sales, Dice has tech jobs from the
best hiring companies. http://www.dice.com/index.epl?rel_code=104