Limit bandwidth when downloading and resume download.

[Fernando Carvalho]

Not everyone have a fast internet connection available.
So I think that the ability to limit bandwidth and resume downloads
are some features that could help people downloading larger files from
web.
In my case, for example, I need download Apple's Xcode which is 2.3 GB
and my bandwidth is only a single megabit.
I would take a whole day to download it, and no body else could use
the connection in my home, while I'm downloading it.
So the best way I thought to solve this issue is limiting the
bandwidth, so I can browse while the download is being done, and also,
I need the ability to resume the download, in the case that I need to
shutdown my PC during this, too long, download.
I don't know if this feature is available in chrome, but I was unable
to find it.
Does anyone have a suggestion for me?

[mrst...@gmail.com]

There are porograms that can limit bandwidth as well as most routers now adays as well.


Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

--
Chromium Discussion mailing list: chromium...@chromium.org
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-discuss

[Fernando Carvalho]

Someone can laugh and say that I'm crazy to suggest bandwidth limit to
help download larger files. But this idea is the same that is used in
time sharing, multitask operating systems: a limited amount of time
for each process, so everyone get the impression that it running all
the time.
The same will apply for downloads, if we all the resources in a single
download, no bandwidth will remain for other tasks that I do, and I
will not be able to complete the download, because no one today can
remain waiting a whole day to a task be accomplished.

[Fernando Carvalho]

But would be best if this feature could be integrated in chrome.
Today the files are growing larger. Linux distributions are getting
even more larger to download than they were before.
In my opinion, since chrome is be the browser for replace all the
others, I think that this shouldn't be any problem to get this feature
enabled.
I think that bandwidth limit will increase user experience, when
browsing sites that are bandwidth greedy like youtube.
Too few people needs to download youtube video, at full speed to get a
good video play, because the frame hate in some cases are slower than
the bandwidth.
In many cases, when we use the whole bandwidth, the connection to some
servers broke and we become unable to browse while the download is not
accomplished.

> Chromium Discussion mailing list: chromium-disc...@chromium.org

[mrst...@gmail.com]

True but one of the benefits of Chrome is it is lightweight. I am afraid that after a year it will be as bloated as FF.

Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

-----Original Message-----

From: Fernando Carvalho <fernandocar...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 14:19:52
To: Chromium-discuss<chromium...@chromium.org>

Chromium Discussion mailing list: chromium...@chromium.org

[PhistucK]

Chrome is a browser, not a download manager.

For now, there are no download APIs for extensions. Once there are, it might be able to do some more than it currently does.

If you need advanced download manager capabilities, use a download manager and let Chrome be your excellent browser. :)

☆PhistucK

Chromium Discussion mailing list: chromium...@chromium.org

[S D Allen]

I hear you, afraid of "feature" bloat to.

--
Cheers,
Steve
###############################################        
My Social Profile @Google; http://bit.ly/ddD1gv
################################################

[Rainfly]

I understand that everyone is worried about feature bloat, but
honestly, this is *exactly* the kind of functionality that's
*supposed* to be part of the browser. I download files all the time,
often large ones. While I appreciate HTML 5 support, for example,
better download management (including the ability to take individual
items out of my download bar) would be immensely more useful to me,
especially considering that it's not a terribly bloating thing to
write into a compiled executable if done at all competently. I think
what we're all forgetting here is how little impact this will have on
the codebase, file size and load time of chrome.exe - and it's useful.

[Fernando Carvalho]

A agree with Rainfly.
Download management in a browser is really simple to be implemented
and is too useful for people.
For example, when I'm on my Mac and I'm downloading, if the PC
hibernates, the link get broken and all the downloaded data is lost.
Firefox have an option to resume the download. Why should Chrome be
different?

On Jun 10, 6:26 pm, Rainfly <campadrena...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I understand that everyone is worried about feature bloat, but
> honestly, this is *exactly* the kind of functionality that's

> *supposed* to be part of the browser. Idownloadfiles all the time,

> often large ones. While I appreciate HTML 5 support, for example,

> betterdownloadmanagement (including the ability to take individual
> items out of mydownloadbar) would be immensely more useful to me,

> especially considering that it's not a terribly bloating thing to
> write into a compiled executable if done at all competently. I think
> what we're all forgetting here is how little impact this will have on
> the codebase, file size and load time of chrome.exe - and it's useful.
>
> On Jun 10, 5:21 am, S D Allen <stephen.d.al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I hear you, afraid of "feature" bloat to.
>
> > On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 5:22 PM, <mrsta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > True but one of the benefits of Chrome is it is lightweight. I am afraid
> > > that after a year it will be as bloated as FF.
>
> > > Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Fernando Carvalho <fernandocarvalhocoe...@gmail.com>
> > > Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 14:19:52
> > > To: Chromium-discuss<chromium-disc...@chromium.org>
> > > Subject: [chromium-discuss] Re: Limit bandwidth when downloading and resume
> > >        download.
>
> > > But would be best if this feature could be integrated in chrome.
> > > Today the files are growing larger. Linux distributions are getting

> > > even more larger todownloadthan they were before.

> > > In my opinion, since chrome is be the browser for replace all the
> > > others, I think that this shouldn't be any problem to get this feature
> > > enabled.
> > > I think that bandwidth limit will increase user experience, when
> > > browsing sites that are bandwidth greedy like youtube.

> > > Too few people needs todownloadyoutube video, at full speed to get a

> > > good video play, because the frame hate in some cases are slower than
> > > the bandwidth.
> > > In many cases, when we use the whole bandwidth, the connection to some

> > > servers broke and we become unable to browse while thedownloadis not

> > > accomplished.
>
> > > On Jun 9, 5:56 pm, mrsta...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > There are porograms that can limit bandwidth as well as most routers now
> > > adays as well.
>
> > > > Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®
>
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Fernando Carvalho <fernandocarvalhocoe...@gmail.com>
> > > > Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 13:52:11
> > > > To: Chromium-discuss<chromium-disc...@chromium.org>
> > > > Subject: [chromium-discuss] Limit bandwidth when downloading and resume
>
> > > >        download.
>
> > > > Not everyone have a fast internet connection available.
> > > > So I think that the ability to limit bandwidth and resume downloads
> > > > are some features that could help people downloading larger files from
> > > > web.

> > > > In my case, for example, I needdownloadApple's Xcode which is 2.3 GB

> > > > and my bandwidth is only a single megabit.

> > > > I would take a whole day todownloadit, and no body else could use

> > > > the connection in my home, while I'm downloading it.
> > > > So the best way I thought to solve this issue is limiting the

> > > > bandwidth, so I can browse while thedownloadis being done, and also,
> > > > I need the ability to resume thedownload, in the case that I need to

[Rainfly]

Thank you, Fernando. I'd almost forgotten about this thread, since
I've gone on to make extensions, which is why I can say from
experience that any attempt to use extensions to control downloading
is going to be hacky and ugly, partly because it's circumventing a
perfectly functional internal download manager for a few good
features. It has to be able to do things that extensions simply can't
right now, like catching context menu events and rerouting them to an
external download manager. There's no good way to do it, except to dig
into the Chrome source code and write it into the browser itself.

On Jun 28, 2:44 pm, Fernando Carvalho

[S D Allen]

Nah this should be what a download mgr if for; Don't want feature bloat, please. Most people don't require this except power users IMO.

Chromium Discussion mailing list: chromium...@chromium.org

View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
   http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-discuss

[S D Allen]

Sending back to the list as it looks like it was sent to me by mistake;

Ben; I'm not a google/chromium developer. But I agree it could be an extension if required.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ben <benj...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: [chromium-discuss] Re: Limit bandwidth when downloading and resume download.
To: stephen...@gmail.com


For what it's worth, couldn't you make a simple extension with an NPAPI plugin that was configured to handle application/octet-stream (or whatever), and pipe it to a download manager application?

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:40:48 -0400
S D Allen <stephen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Nah this should be what a download mgr if for; Don't want feature bloat,
> please. Most people don't require this except power users IMO.
>
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Rainfly <campad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Thank you, Fernando. I'd almost forgotten about this thread, since
> > I've gone on to make extensions, which is why I can say from
> > experience that any attempt to use extensions to control downloading
> > is going to be hacky and ugly, partly because it's circumventing a
> > perfectly functional internal download manager for a few good
> > features. It has to be able to do things that extensions simply can't
> > right now, like catching context menu events and rerouting them to an
> > external download manager. There's no good way to do it, except to dig
> > into the Chrome source code and write it into the browser itself.
> >

--
Ben

[Rainfly]

With all due respect, sir, there are a ton of people out there who
would be better off with the resumer, even if they're not technical
enough to know it. Anyone with a shaky wifi connection, a weekend with
dialup, anything that could disrupt a large download... and there's
the user, fist in the air, yelling at the sky in anguish because that
file he downloaded is now a useless, unfinishable stump on his disk,
and all the time he's spent downloading it is wasted. Good job, the
default download manager just screwed him over rather completely, and
he blames the browser.

Part of the reason we hate feature bloat (and yes, that "we" does
include me) is that in the end, it alienates the non-techy users, much
like seeing the array of controls in an airplane cockpit or space
shuttle. Chrome is designed around simplicity of interface, that's why
it's so great (that and sandboxing and HTML5 and so on). But the
casual user is not going to know to download a whole seperate program
just for download resuming, and to be perfectly honest, *they really
shouldn't have to.* I can think of no legitimate reason not include a
simple, universally useful feature that will make an ant-sized
footprint in the UI and codebase. It's not a power user tool, it's an
everybody tool. While bandwidth limiting is more the under-the-hood
sort of thing, and much less of a priority, I strongly suggest
integrating a resume function.

And no, Mr. Allen, building an extension to do this is not only
completely impossible, but anyone who's worked with the API would
burst out laughing at the poor sap who tries. Those kind of tools
don't exist in the API yet, and probably never will, at least for a
long time. Even forwarding download requests to a separate manager is
a fairly hopeless cause, though not quite as bad. While I like the
idea, in theory, of having more periphery features done in extensions,
Chrome simply doesn't let extensions cuddle that close to the inner
workings of the browser.

On Jun 29, 7:40 am, S D Allen <stephen.d.al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nah this should be what a download mgr if for; Don't want feature bloat,
> please. Most people don't require this except power users IMO.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Rainfly <campadrena...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Thank you, Fernando. I'd almost forgotten about this thread, since
> > I've gone on to make extensions, which is why I can say from
> > experience that any attempt to use extensions to control downloading
> > is going to be hacky and ugly, partly because it's circumventing a
> > perfectly functional internal download manager for a few good
> > features. It has to be able to do things that extensions simply can't
> > right now, like catching context menu events and rerouting them to an
> > external download manager. There's no good way to do it, except to dig
> > into the Chrome source code and write it into the browser itself.
>

> > > > > > Subject: [chromium-discuss] Re: Limit bandwidth when downloading
> > and resume
> > > > > >        download.
>

> > > > > > > Subject: [chromium-discuss] Limit bandwidth when downloading and
> > resume
>
> > > > > > >        download.
>

> > > > > --
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Steve
> > > > > ###############################################
> > > > > My Social Profile @Google;http://bit.ly/ddD1gv
> > > > > ################################################
>

> > --
> > Chromium Discussion mailing list: chromium-disc...@chromium.org
> > View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
> >    http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-discuss
>

> --
> Cheers,
> Steve
> ###############################################
> My Social Profile @Google;http://bit.ly/ddD1gv
> ################################################

On Jun 29, 9:25 am, S D Allen <stephen.d.al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sending back to the list as it looks like it was sent to me by mistake;
>
> Ben; I'm not a google/chromium developer. But I agree it could be an
> extension if required.
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ben <benjo...@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [chromium-discuss] Re: Limit bandwidth when downloading and
>
> resume download.

> To: stephen.d.al...@gmail.com

>
> For what it's worth, couldn't you make a simple extension with an NPAPI
> plugin that was configured to handle application/octet-stream (or whatever),
> and pipe it to a download manager application?
>
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:40:48 -0400
> S D Allen <stephen.d.al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Nah this should be what a download mgr if for; Don't want feature bloat,
> > please. Most people don't require this except power users IMO.
>

[Ben]

I'd like to know why a plug-in wouldn't work for this; I wouldn't mind
writing such a plug-in, but I'd need to read more about NPAPI first.
...I wish it was Python or C++, but that's another issue.

I agree that the ability to resume a download would be very useful in
Chrome, but I think that limiting download speeds and other advanced
features should be handled by a dedicated download manager (if
possible). I don't believe it's necessary to intercept any context menus
for this (if we're just sending data to an external program, users can
configure the program how they like, and additional configuration may be
set and sent to the program via the extension and plug-in. A
browserAction and/or infobar can be used to display information about
download progress, and cancel/pause/resume buttons can be added to the
pageAction's pop-up, which would send a message to the download
manager). Of course, this is all theory until someone does it.

[Rainfly]

The problem is that even with the NPAPI, Chrome doesn't give plugins
access to internal stuff in the downloader. And the resuming issue
isn't even in the downloader - out of curiosity, I took a peek into
the source code. You have to rewrite or completely replace one of the
core libraries in the Chromium source, which is responsible for pretty
much every HTTP transaction in the browser ever. Which you can't even
do with the gigantic hammer that is the NPAPI. The closest you can get
is making a completely alternate internal download manager, which is
extraordinarily clunky, but the most usable way to do it. So if you're
going to do it, do it that way. But it's still a really poor
substitute for having the resume mechanism being built into the
official download system.

As for the download speed limiter, I'm actually in agreement with you,
I think. My opinion is, nice feature, wouldn't be terribly bloating
(and you almost might as well, since you'd have to crack open the same
source code files to build the resumer anyways), and you can keep it
out of sight for non-power-users in the Options area, but not really a
necessary feature, so I can sympathize with the people who consider it
bloat to the point where I wouldn't be very affected if no one built
it.

On Jun 29, 4:57 pm, Ben <benjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like to know why a plug-in wouldn't work for this; I wouldn't mind
> writing such a plug-in, but I'd need to read more about NPAPI first.
> ...I wish it was Python or C++, but that's another issue.
>
> I agree that the ability to resume a download would be very useful in
> Chrome, but I think that limiting download speeds and other advanced
> features should be handled by a dedicated download manager (if
> possible). I don't believe it's necessary to intercept any context menus
> for this (if we're just sending data to an external program, users can
> configure the program how they like, and additional configuration may be
> set and sent to the program via the extension and plug-in. A
> browserAction and/or infobar can be used to display information about
> download progress, and cancel/pause/resume buttons can be added to the
> pageAction's pop-up, which would send a message to the download

[S D Allen]

This browser is a work-in-progress and is just over a year old. I remember when Mozilla was this old and it didn't have close to the APIs that Chrome/Chromium now support at this point in time.

So give it time Rainfly, things don't get done overnight in terms of the APIs. This still should be an extension in my opinion FWIW. Hopefully extensions like Download Them All will come to Chrome eventually.

Chromium Discussion mailing list: chromium...@chromium.org

View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
   http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-discuss