Steve,
I went to fusebox.org but could not find the stats tool. Can you give us a
URL?
Thanks.
ps. great book
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 1:55 PM
To: Fusebox
Subject: Stats engine
I'll post my stats tool to fusebox.org tonight if you all will help me
improve it.
It does boring HTML bargraphs, but it's functional, and gives instant
gratification. i.e. no 2 hour parsing ala webtrends, it does a simple
SQL statement to obtain the graph. I could definitely use some help in
coming up with more reports.
It's built off of SQL Server 7 and may not work under other DBs, but I'm
sure it could be modified to do so.
Steve
Erik Voldengen wrote:
>
> Hey fellas. I'm sure this has already been brought up, but I
> can't find it.
>
> In my previous job, our clients used webtrends and livestats to look
> at visitor statistics. And while fusebox is horrible for showing
> individual fuseaction hits in stats applications, it's great for
> showing visitation to circuit applications.
>
> That was fine with the clients, because they could see that vistor A
> was in /PRODUCTS for 12 minutes, 2000 visitors hit /COMMUNITY/FORUM
> on X day, etc.
>
> But if we go with this nested architecture, then all stats will reflect
> one and only one page being hit, one zillion times a day. Is that
> right? This forces me (and probably some other people out there) to
> re-address the issue of statistics. I don't think having them pay me
> for a stats module in the backend is the best solution, especially
> when they like 3d graphs and such from canned stats applications.
>
> So I'll be the 1000th person to ask - what is Hal et all doing to
> accomodate this issue?
>
> -Erik
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick McElhaney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 9:09 AM
> To: Fusebox
> Subject: RE: Nesting circuits: I just don't get it! :(
>
> > > But there are plenty of examples where people have been forced to
> > > rename circuits so that they don't conflict with existing circuits.
> > > So it would seem that the fully qualified method is more practical.
> >
> > I have yet to come across this problem at all, I simply create
> > another name
> > for the circuit in the Circuits.cfm file, and bam I'm done.
>
> Under my proposed method, you don't even have to change the
> circuits.cfm. No assembly required. Just drop it in and it works.
>
> So again, I pose the question. Why DON'T you just use the fully
> qualified fuseaction?
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
