Jump to content


Photo

Remote copy-pasting


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 asdf007

asdf007
  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 27 May 2007 - 10:37 AM

Hi,

Why doesn't SmartFTP allow remote copy-pasting? I know this is not a standard FTP feature but what about downloading the source file into a temp folder and then uploading it back to the destination folder? Sounds totally obvious to me and other clients have been doing this for like ages, so I'm really wondering why SmartFTP doesn't.

Really annoying to download the files and then upload them back every single time, imho.

Just my two cents -- otherwise SmartFTP is absolutely perfect to me.

#2 mb

mb

    Developer

  • Administrators
  • 11525 posts
  • Gender:
    Male
  • Location:
    Worldwide

Posted 27 May 2007 - 11:35 AM

Hello ..

What "other" ftp clients are you referring to?

Regards,
-Mat

#3 asdf007

asdf007
  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 27 May 2007 - 01:04 PM

I don't have one in mind really, I've been using SmartFTP for years now, but I'm pretty sure the one I used before had this, and it was... huh, quite a while ago.

Doesn't matter anyway. The thing is, a client which can download and upload should be able to simulate a remote copy pretty damn easily. That would be really, really handy.

What do you think?

#4 xLP

xLP
  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 04 June 2007 - 07:02 AM

I've always wanted that feature too... over drag & drop too (so when holding ctrl, instead of moving the file it would download it and upload it to the drop target folder...)

#5 foxyshadis

foxyshadis
  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 11 July 2007 - 12:22 AM

I've always wanted that feature too... over drag & drop too (so when holding ctrl, instead of moving the file it would download it and upload it to the drop target folder...)

That's probably my most wanted feature (and cause of the most frustrations when forgotten), since nothing really supports FXP, so consider a vote lodged.

#6 threadster

threadster
  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 24 December 2011 - 07:32 PM

Agreed. Of Course. Please! You guys should be praised for implementing FXP, and it would be nice if it was more supported as it is an ideal solution (except for possible security issues I'm not familiar with).

So to get around this, I have to do what the orignal poster states. Copy from source to local. Copy back to remote target. Bleck.

Simply put, this one action (user copy) gets split out into two items in the queue, 1) download remote source to local temp, 2) upload local temp to remote target.

Are there technical issues with this? It seems so obvious, yet you guys have such a good product and are obviously capable. What is the issue?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users