Re: PuTTY for tunnelling with no window?

From: dwalin (dwalin_at_dwalin.ru)
Date: 09/27/04 

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 21:09:37 +0400

On 27 Sep 2004 16:24:23 +0100 (BST), Simon Tatham <anakin@pobox.com>
wrote:

>It seems clear to me that in normal use you wouldn't bother - you'd
>just leave it there until you logged out of your Windows session and
>expect it to detect that and close itself down. But what if you set
>up the tunnels wrongly? You'd want to be able to ask it to terminate
>in some way. How would you expect to be able to do that?

 one way i can think up outright: a list of putty windows as an
addition to pageant. and actions upon these windows: hide, show,
close. anyway i don't think that not creating window at all is such a
great idea: any tunneling or other activity could stop by itself and
if you don't have a window with its output to check you would never
know it stopped. on the other hand, having a hidden session window is
beneficial: you can always show it up and check how the process is
going then hide it back if all is well. and if it did stop, you'll see
it right in the window list (in the window title). and this way it
would be compatible with possible -N option: if the putty process is
doing only tunneling and doesn't have any text output it still can
have an empty window which will show in the list.
 also i think this way it would be very easy to implement. in fact, i
think it's a good idea and i will add this functionality to plaunch in
the nearest future.

 always at your service,
 dwalin.