Pale Moon forum

Now that the classic download manager is in super shape, it would be nice to have a queue function added.
I mean a window where download links can be pasted, and they will then be downloaded one by one (or perhaps 2-3 simultaneous, according to user setting).
Also, a mark and right click "add to queue" should be added.
I know that this function can be obtained by installing a download manager, but I like the Pale Moon classic download manager and miss only this feature.
If anyone think I am , wanting this feature, here is the reason for the request:
When downloading a huge amount of files, you only have to re-download a few, when the downloading for any reason screws up.
If Moonchild find this request silly, irrelevant or to hard to implement, I fully understand it, but for sure is that: no request = no feature....

Did you check if a addon have this feature?

Yes, I only see complete (and buggy) download managers, as the DownThemAll.
I can use "Internet download manager" which is a superb and very thorough program, but this is not my wish as mentioned in the first post.

A queueing option is not trivial to add, because I'd have to make a lot of changes to how the built-in manager back-end works (adding events for completed/added downloads, keeping a list of priorities, checking stalled downloads, adding logic for switching to different ones, etc.). I'm sure one of the many many download managers will give you the functionality you need when downloading a large number of files in a short amount of time. These managers can either be extensions or standalone programs, each with their own pros and cons.

I use DownThemAll and have never had a problem with it. Why do you say it's buggy?

DownThemAll gives me many broken or corrupted downloads. I can read that other users experience the same.
Internet Download Manager is an extremely well written program , but totally overshoot when I only want a download queue function.

I've used DTA it in the past myself as a download manager and never had issues with it. Never a single corrupted file.
If you have corrupted downloads for some reason, you may want to check your settings and/or use the checksum feature it has to verify the downloads (when websites post checksums). I gather that "multi-segment" downloading may cause issues, so if that's the problem (depending on what server you download from) then you should configure it to use no more than one download thread per file. It should have a proper queueing of files.

"only" wanting a queue function is not that simple, as I said before

I'll revive this thread: the proposed copy/paste queue window is indeed a bit advanced, how about a maximum simultaneous downloads setting (guess it's sort a queue, too...)? Indeed, DTA could do that but there are some few occasions (usually large files) where most download managers (including DTA) will either corrupt files more easily (even without segmented download, but not necessarily a d.manager fault) or the server will refuse the use of a download manager altogether and only a "pure", browser download will work. I don't know of a download manager which can behave exactly like the browser, they all seem to add some trickery recognisable by servers. We already have the network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server setting which can emulate the proposed feature, but it's not guaranteed since it's not the same thing as a global maximum downloads limit.

You can get around the browser's "download limit" by just pausing each one that is queued but not downloading and then unpausing it.. I do this "pauseplay" on occasion.

Thanks Tobin. Yes, that would be a solution but too much of a hassle for multiple downloads. It will do though, except for strict situations where only a single download is allowed and not a sight of a second simultaneous one. Not a common situation but not too exotic as a feature hopefully.

This option could also help users on a limited/low bandwidth connection.

The point remains that if you need to automatically manage many downloads, then you need to use a download manager. Building one into the browser core beyond the basic one there in the form of the downloads window/library window would be adding complexity that would not be for a feature needed by the majority of users who can do things just fine with the basic download manager.
An extension-based download manager should, to a server, look exactly the same as a "pure" download from the browser. It can send the exact same request header (if implemented correctly) so there shouldn't be a problem.

Even what may seem as simple as "just adding a limit" is not as straightforward as you may think. Downloads can have multiple states and I would have to add another state that means "queued". If failed downloads should automatically be restarted that would need yet another state to distinguish it from "normal" downloads that have failed, etc. Although it is technically possible to build in all that functionality, the main question is: should it, when there are already plenty of more advanced download managers to choose from as extensions each with their own specific advantages?

I thought of this more as simple download 'limiting' than 'managing' and assumed the 'queued' state is somehow already present (network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server=1 seems to behave similarly under certain conditions) but of course you know better, I understand a global download number limit is not the same.

back2themoon wrote:I thought of this more as simple download 'limiting' than 'managing' and assumed the 'queued' state is somehow already present (network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server=1 seems to behave similarly under certain conditions) but of course you know better, I understand a global download number limit is not the same.

Limiting the max persistent connections per server is not a good control mechanism. It will not just impact downloads and will actually make regular browsing a lot worse and more expensive in terms of bandwidth and work done, because it will constantly have to build up and tear down connections -- definitely not recommended to use that.