> > This has now been updated to print a warning that it is ignoring
> > --stayondomain if --stayonhost is also specified.
>
> Further testing shows that you need yet another conditional, because
>- --stayondomain is overridden by --staybelow as well. Personally, I'm of the
>opinion that --stayondomain should override any other settings, not the
>reverse. The idea is to get working content, not broken content, or at the
>very least, print a warning:
>
> "Warning, your use of stayondomain is being overridden by your use
> of the stayonhost and staybelow directives"
>
> ..or some such.
>
> I think we all need to come to a concensus as to what the precedence
>will be, since we all have our own spiders and tools we use to fetch, but we
>(mostly) rely on the stock home.html and plucker.ini and ~/.pluckerrc files.
>
> I think it should be as below:
>
> --staybelow = ${url}
>
> --stayonhost # overrides staybelow
>
> --stayondomain # overrides stayonhost _and_ staybelow
>
> This places the precedence in the order most-restrictive to least.
I'm willing to go with this, but intuitively to me the restrictiveness of
the options should be additive. In other words, if you use several, you
get all the restrictions of --stayondomain PLUS all the restrictions of
--stayonhost (or --staybelow). Of course that means that --stayondomain
winds up being moot in those cases - hence the message. But at least that
behavior would be logically anticipated.
Having options substract restrictions instead would run counter to the
current behavior. If a page links off of the current host and that host is
specifically included in the exclusionlist.txt file, it is ignored anyhow
due to --stayonhost. In other words, --stayonhost currently has higher
precedence (priority) than inclusions. It does not have higher priority
than exclusions... the restrictions are additive.
Consequently, if I selected --stayonhost and the pluck didnot stay on the
host, I would feel that the other option had broken it.
What you're asking for would comprise a change in how --staybelow,
--stayonhost, and any inclusions in the exclusionlist interact. I haven't
tested the interactions between --stayonhost and --staybelow, but looking
at the source code it appears that --staybelow would sort-of trump out
--stayonhost already... which is the opposite of what you're asking for.
Since my intuition and the current code both prioritize the most
restrictive, rather than least restrictive, option selected, I'd really
like some other people to chime into this discussion with their
preferences. I'd rather not change pre-existing behavior of pre-existing
options if there isn't a compelling groundswell to do so.
Tony McNamara
_______________________________________________
plucker-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-list
