On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:18:55 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
<NpOeStPeAdM@nnowslpianmk.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :
Well, you know better than any of us how the processing proceeds. But it
seems to me that for any given URL, it's likely to go from "barely
started" to "all done" basically immediately. That is, most of the time
would be spent between the time the connection to the HTTP server is made
and the request is sent, and the time that the response is received. The
set-up and actual inspection probably accounts for practically no time at
all, right?
Correct. There is nothing much meaningful you could say about the
progress on an individual item other than not started, checking,
complete. It might be interesting to have an idea of how long link
checks are taking, perhaps by fading colour changes.
Overall progress would be measured by items complete that is pretty
straightforward. What I was curious about is what to show the viewer
about individual items as the process proceeds.
In this particular case, individual link failures are far more
interesting than successes. You want to report them as early as
possible since the user may be eager to get on with researching the
causes. In my case, there are usually less than 10 in 80,000 links.
One method would be to store the results in a sorted table.
When a job starts add a record with status of "running". The record could
include fields to store the start time and completion time. When the job
finishes update the record with the job's completion status and set the time.
The user would be in control of the sorting. They can sort the list by job