<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xml:lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><title>Recent changes to feature-requests</title><link href="https://sourceforge.net/p/sharpssh/feature-requests/" rel="alternate"/><link href="https://sourceforge.net/p/sharpssh/feature-requests/feed.atom" rel="self"/><id>https://sourceforge.net/p/sharpssh/feature-requests/</id><updated>2016-10-17T13:26:18.165000Z</updated><subtitle>Recent changes to feature-requests</subtitle><entry><title>Licence details in a single text file please</title><link href="https://sourceforge.net/p/sharpssh/feature-requests/5/" rel="alternate"/><published>2016-10-17T13:26:18.165000Z</published><updated>2016-10-17T13:26:18.165000Z</updated><author><name>GadgetSteve</name><uri>https://sourceforge.net/u/gadgetsteve/</uri></author><id>https://sourceforge.netf94054842516320a871d9a4cca676e11cca806b1</id><summary type="html">&lt;div class="markdown_content"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please consider adding a LICENCE.txt OR COPYING.txt file to &lt;strong&gt;both&lt;/strong&gt; source and binary distributions - having only comments in the source files is not best practice as some of us need to get a legal review before making any use of open source components and being able to point the lawyers at a single file simplifies matters enournously.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary></entry><entry><title>Delete File</title><link href="https://sourceforge.net/p/sharpssh/feature-requests/4/" rel="alternate"/><published>2015-03-01T10:45:45.442000Z</published><updated>2015-03-01T10:45:45.442000Z</updated><author><name>Squiur</name><uri>https://sourceforge.net/u/squiur/</uri></author><id>https://sourceforge.net220af4df64ebb9b505fbb7ab5a428d0d689aee4d</id><summary type="html">&lt;div class="markdown_content"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Possibility to delete files on the server sftp&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary></entry><entry><title>Timeout possibility forSshShell.Expect</title><link href="https://sourceforge.net/p/sharpssh/feature-requests/3/" rel="alternate"/><published>2013-04-17T12:14:02Z</published><updated>2013-04-17T12:14:02Z</updated><author><name>polarlightning</name><uri>https://sourceforge.net/u/polarlightning/</uri></author><id>https://sourceforge.netd50edec4c55a493b0535480f41f3819fa519a0ed</id><summary type="html">&lt;div class="markdown_content"&gt;&lt;p&gt;I would find it very useful and aligned with common patterns with similar things that Expect(..) function would have timeout parameter (timeout in milliseconds). &lt;br /&gt;
"Whenever you are expecting something that you cannot be 100% sure of, it might happen that it never happens what you are waiting for".&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I think there is a generic need for such, but I can list two specific cases additionally:&lt;br /&gt;
- when executing commands after one another and some of those are optional,&lt;br /&gt;
you cannot know for each command  if you should first expect for a command prompt or not&lt;br /&gt;
in a common command-handling method which would take any command string as a parameter&lt;br /&gt;
and return the output of the command as a string.&lt;br /&gt;
Waiting for command prompt for some time (timeout) would help the situation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;- When executing a command to configure the IP-interface of the device, you will loose&lt;br /&gt;
connection with the device in the middle of command. In that case if you are waiting&lt;br /&gt;
for some string and have no timeout-failure option, you are in troubles (or have to use dirty methods).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thanks for considering!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary></entry><entry><title>Streams local param on SCP/SFTP GET/PUT</title><link href="https://sourceforge.net/p/sharpssh/feature-requests/2/" rel="alternate"/><published>2010-10-12T12:44:20Z</published><updated>2010-10-12T12:44:20Z</updated><author><name>Anonymous</name><uri>https://sourceforge.net/u/userid-None/</uri></author><id>https://sourceforge.net73e0089b2ae77b70f09a0fc9d17c28bda8b05544</id><summary type="html">&lt;div class="markdown_content"&gt;&lt;p&gt;It would be nice to be able to pass in a stream instead of a filepath string, for the 'local' parameter, to the get/put methods on the scp/sftp classes.  I downloaded and made this change in the source. It seems to be pretty stable.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary></entry><entry><title>SFTP and SCP</title><link href="https://sourceforge.net/p/sharpssh/feature-requests/1/" rel="alternate"/><published>2007-10-17T14:12:24Z</published><updated>2007-10-17T14:12:24Z</updated><author><name>Anonymous</name><uri>https://sourceforge.net/u/userid-None/</uri></author><id>https://sourceforge.net79b324a124744e39c6329b3f5fc70f0b9bf0f100</id><summary type="html">&lt;div class="markdown_content"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Could you please make the sftp and scp code thread-safe? I have to sftp one file at a time and this hinders performance&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary></entry></feed>