Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'Synchronize customized .mac homepages with sitecopy' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Synchronize customized .mac homepages with sitecopy
Authored by: pixelcort on Mar 19, '03 04:00:27PM
For those of you who don't want to have to deal with all those steps, rsync is a much better option. Sorry for the self-plug, but I have written a nice little frontend to rsync called iMirror (http://homepage.mac.com/pixelcort/imirror/) . This AppleScript Studio app is very simple: Two text fields, a checkbox and a button. Just mount your iDisk in the Finder and then run iMirror. Click on the button and rsync will figure out the changes that you have made and upload them. iMirror is also good for backing up to a r/w location, such as another partition or something. http://homepage.mac.com/pixelcort/imirror/ (iMirror) is licenced under the GNU Public License and the source code is available. You could probably add a line of code to mount your iDisk so that you don't have to mount it seperately. That's the power of open-source combined with AppleScript Studio!

[ Reply to This | # ]
Synchronize customized .mac homepages with sitecopy
Authored by: jjgb on Mar 19, '03 05:10:27PM

I think that your program (iMirror) and sitecopy are targeted to different audiences. Sitecopy offers much more flexibility when dealing with multiple sites. It also does a great job when you do not want all the files in your site synchronized (for example, you might choose to ignore files with a particular extension).

From the sitecopy page comparison between rsync and sitecopy:

rsync can handle changes to existing files much more efficiently than sitecopy, by only transmitting the differences: sitecopy will always completely re-upload changed files. On the other hand; sitecopy can handle moving and renaming files more efficiently than rsync; it can simply move or rename the file on the server, whereas rsync will completely re-upload the file when it is moved or renamed.

Finally, I find sitecopy particularly useful because I have a single shell command to regenerate my site (using a couple of perl scripts), and update the differences in the server. I am also planning to incorporate my weblog rebuilding (with Movable Type) and uploading into the same script.



[ Reply to This | # ]