MX and URL trick for search engines
We use the trick of replacing the ampersands and question marks in a URL with slashes in order to have our website indexed by search engines. Instead of having the URL appear as: MySite.cfm?VarName=Value it appears as MyPage.cfm/VarName/Value This works extremely well in CF5 on IIS5 (patched to the hilt). The functionality happened, as I recall, out of the box. We saw the method recommended in fusebox and adopted it. We are now configuring CFMX on a development server, and all of a sudden it is broken. We never ran CF5 on this server as a control, so it could be IIS that is misconfigured or has a patch that stops this behavior, although we just built out another CF5 server on a fully patched IIS install and had no problems. There is a third party ISAPI filter that will do this in IIS, but I'm wondering what has happened to break this. Any ideas? Thanks, Matt __ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: MX and URL trick for search engines
IIS gives a 404 error, and fails to hand off the page to CFMX for processing. It isn't a CFMX error for an unrecognized variable. Therefore, I don't think there is any code we can put in our CFM pages to solve this. A lot of people use this trick, especially on apache with 'mod_rewrite'. The commercial ISAPI filter is IIS Rewrite from http://www.qwerksoft.com/. Still researching... Matt -Original Message- From: Martin Orth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 10:41 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: MX and URL trick for search engines I use this code as a custom tag. It requires cgi.path_info and cgi.script_name It transforms cgi.path_info into url variables you can urls like index.cfm/fuseaction/showrecord/id/23 with the custom you will get two url variables url.fuseaction=showrecord url.id=23 cfset lRawUrlParam=Replace(cgi.path_info,script_name,) cfset aRawUrlParam=ListToArray(lRawUrlParam,/) cfloop from=1 to=#ArrayLen(aRawUrlParam)# index=i step=2 cfif i mod 2 eq 1 and i+1 lte ArrayLen(aRawUrlParam) cfset url.#aRawUrlParam[i]#=Evaluate(aRawUrlParam[i+1])/cfif /cfloop - Original Message - From: MW [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 5:08 PM Subject: MX and URL trick for search engines We use the trick of replacing the ampersands and question marks in a URL with slashes in order to have our website indexed by search engines. Instead of having the URL appear as: MySite.cfm?VarName=Value it appears as MyPage.cfm/VarName/Value This works extremely well in CF5 on IIS5 (patched to the hilt). The functionality happened, as I recall, out of the box. We saw the method recommended in fusebox and adopted it. We are now configuring CFMX on a development server, and all of a sudden it is broken. We never ran CF5 on this server as a control, so it could be IIS that is misconfigured or has a patch that stops this behavior, although we just built out another CF5 server on a fully patched IIS install and had no problems. There is a third party ISAPI filter that will do this in IIS, but I'm wondering what has happened to break this. Any ideas? Thanks, Matt __ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: CFMX caching...
The approach that I would take is to remove CF from the picture. Do a simple html form posting to an html page and see if you get the same 'RePost' results for apache and IIS. If so, MX is not the culprit. You might also check to see if CF influences the headers while you perform this test by comparing the headers below. Depending on your results, the next step would be to try to alter the server headers to see if you can get the RePost problem by changing the headers of the CF5 machine line-by-line into those of the CFMX machine. Matt -Original Message- From: Brian Scandale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 4:02 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: CFMX caching... That worked like a champ Mark. These are the two results... Nothing obvious to me as to why I can backup into the previous page without having to repost with CF5 but not CFMX. - This is from CFMX/Apache --- backs up but forces a RePost - Connection Keep-Alive Content-Typetext/html; charset=UTF-8 DateThu, 11 Jul 2002 08:37:25 GMT Explanation OK Http_VersionHTTP/1.1 Keep-Alive timeout=15, max=500 Server Apache/1.3.23 (Unix) (Red-Hat/Linux) mod_ssl/2.8.7 OpenSSL/0.9.6b DAV/1.0.3 PHP/4.1.2 mod_perl/1.26 Status_Code 200 Transfer-Encoding chunked content-length 0 - This is CF5/IIS --- backsup WITHOUT forcing a RePost - CONTENT-TYPE text/html DATE Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:46:59 GMT EXPLANATION OK HTTP_VERSION HTTP/1.1 PAGE-COMPLETION-STATUS Normal SERVER Microsoft-IIS/5.0 STATUS_CODE 200 At 07:52 PM 7/10/02, you wrote: You can see the headers by getting CF to display them after doing a CFHTTP. Try this Put the following code in a file in the web root: Then place a file called x.cfm in the web root, that just does something simple like cfset x=Form.test Then run the first file. You should get a dump of the HTTP headers that were sent back. What headers do you get? Cheers, Mark From: Brian Scandale [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: CFMX caching... Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:52:25 -0700 Just noticed that the included header from my last post was stripped out because it contained a cut and paste of the header... htlm,javascript and all... I'll try again with the javascript pulled out and the tags mangled. - the top of the file with the header !-- Application -- !-- index -- htmlhead titleWIPtrac - WORK IN PROCESS Mfg Execution Systems/title link rel=STYLESHEET type=text/css href=msie.css meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 /head body leftmargin=0 topmargin=0 onLoad=firstFocus() end -- just a normal looking header section. At 01:28 AM 7/10/02, you wrote: At 12:55 AM 7/10/02, you wrote: The first question you have to ask yourself is, what changed? Just pulled CF5 off a dev machine and put CFMX up... then the trouble started. the same code still works well on a CF5 production machine. Are you sure the only difference is CFMX? What web server are you using? Still using the same ole apache that was being used with CF5... but now the annoying RePost Messages all over the place!!! Very annoying. The production machine is IIS and CF5 Are you now using CFMX's built-in web server instead of an external one like with CF 5? Generally speaking, page expiration is based on web server generated headers. S Glad you asked. ;-) This is the header off the CFMX machine... looks Just like the header off the CF5 machine with the exception of the variation in the Javascript... CFMX now references the cfform scripts rather than pasting them into the header. !-- Application -- __ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: CFMX caching...
I can give you the definitive answer on this after much research. It is caused by the following: 1) The user submits a form as a 'post' 2) The browser displays the results of the post 3) The user goes to another page 4) The user hits the back button to return to the results page from the post 5) The browser has dropped the page from its cache 6) Wisely, the browser asks you if you would like to re-post the form vars that generated the results page. If it automatically did this for you, it could trigger repurchases and all other kinds of mayhem. The simplest solution to this is to change your form to 'get' instead of 'post'. This will cause the browser to change all of your form vars to url vars on the fly. Thus when the user hits the back button, if the page is no longer cached the browser will reload it without issuing the workflow-killing refresh error because there is assumed to be no chance (by convention) of danger. This solution is quite simple and is employed by ebay. The only limit I know of is url length, which I found to be for IE 6 about 1250 characters (I forget the exact figure). There is another way to approach this, to use a javascript trick to try to change order of the results page in the browser's history so that it gets confused and will re-post the form without asking permission. I haven't tried this and I can't speak to whether or not it works. So, the reason why this intermittent plague of non-cached form results happens is related to either 1) the browser version of the user and when it decides to purge its cache, or 2) the headers and/or meta tags returned by the server which help it make that decision. While some browsers give this error 100% of the time, others do it every now and then, and typically longer into a browsing session. My assumption is that MX has a different header which is causing a different action by the browser, although you might have just changed out your browser without realizing it. For reference, Netscape and Mozilla have this behavior, too. It is the natural and correct behavior once the cache has been purged. The optimal solution is getting the browser to always cache *your* server's pages, but killing the error is the second best option. To research further yourself, search in google groups with the text of your warning. There are hundreds of people asking this very same question. Matt -- Matt Wisdom CTO Turbo Squid -Original Message- From: Brian Scandale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 7:39 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: CFMX caching... I switched to CFMX a few days ago... Suddenly (when clicking back) Many pages declare the Warning: Page has Expired. The page you requested was created using information you submitted in a form. This page is no longer available. To resubmit your information and view this Web page, click the Refresh button. This is NEW behavior in just the last few days and I am having trouble tracking it down. I have pulled out all the META caching tags like: !---meta http-equiv=Pragma content=no-cache META HTTP-EQUIV=Expires CONTENT=-1--- but I am still getting all the Warnings. Prior to CFMX I had no problems backing up across the pages... Anyone know what might be doing this? Thanks, Brian __ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: CFMX caching...
I am no master of the http protocol. It is very interesting that you have isolated everything down to the CF 5 and CF MX servers. How different is the actual html file -- just a little whitespace? I expect that this can't be the cause. It has to be some difference in the http communication itself, which leads me to think that it is not curable. Here is a tool called TracePlus32 Web Detective 2.20 on download.com that can be used in demo-mode and may help. http://download.com.com/3000-2068-10110784.html?tag=lst-0-1 TracePlus32 Web Detective is a trace/analysis tool specifically designed for Web development. The Web Detective decodes the HTTP protocol and displays it in an easy to understand format. Running a side by side analysis might give us some answers. Even still, I'd be willing to bet some users of your site had this problem, it just wasn't 100% of the time. At our company, maybe 3 people have it 100% and 3 people never, and 8 people intermittently. Matt -- Matt Wisdom CTO Turbo Squid -Original Message- From: Brian Scandale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 10:28 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: CFMX caching... At 07:12 PM 7/9/02, you wrote: I can give you the definitive answer on this after much research. It is caused by the following: 1) The user submits a form as a 'post' 2) The browser displays the results of the post 3) The user goes to another page 4) The user hits the back button to return to the results page from the post 5) The browser has dropped the page from its cache 6) Wisely, the browser asks you if you would like to re-post the form vars that generated the results page. If it automatically did this for you, it could trigger repurchases and all other kinds of mayhem. Yes... I understand the above... I only put the javascript:history.back(); in places where it makes sense to use it. The problem is repeatable ... the EXACT same code using the EXACT same computer browser against CF5 does not ask to repost while against CFMX it does. Looking at the headers shows them to be IDENTICAL... unless you are referring to header information that is not displayed using ViewSource. I'm WAY stumped. The simplest solution to this is to change your form to 'get' instead of 'post'. This will cause the browser to change all of your form vars to url vars on the fly. Thus when the user hits the back button, if the page is no longer cached the browser will reload it without issuing the workflow-killing refresh error because there is assumed to be no chance (by convention) of danger. This solution is quite simple and is employed by ebay. The only limit I know of is url length, which I found to be for IE 6 about 1250 characters (I forget the exact figure). Could work on some pages... Unfortunately some forms hold 100 plus hidden fields. There is another way to approach this, to use a javascript trick to try to change order of the results page in the browser's history so that it gets confused and will re-post the form without asking permission. I haven't tried this and I can't speak to whether or not it works. Interesting... but would rather just find the cause and set the appropriate switches to make it stop happening. So, the reason why this intermittent plague of non-cached form results happens is related to either 1) the browser version of the user and when it decides to purge its cache, or 2) the headers and/or meta tags returned by the server which help it make that decision. While some browsers give this error 100% of the time, others do it every now and then, and typically longer into a browsing session. My assumption is that MX has a different header which is causing a different action by the browser, although you might have just changed out your browser without realizing it. For reference, Netscape and Mozilla have this behavior, too. It is the natural and correct behavior once the cache has been purged. The optimal solution is getting the browser to always cache *your* server's pages, but killing the error is the second best option. To research further yourself, search in google groups with the text of your warning. There are hundreds of people asking this very same question. Matt -- Matt Wisdom CTO Turbo Squid -Original Message- From: Brian Scandale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 7:39 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: CFMX caching... I switched to CFMX a few days ago... Suddenly (when clicking back) Many pages declare the Warning: Page has Expired. The page you requested was created using information you submitted in a form. This page is no longer available. To resubmit your information and view this Web page, click the Refresh button. This is NEW behavior in just the last few days and I am having trouble tracking it down. I have pulled out all the META caching tags like: !---meta
RE: Long-Running Templates
Server.log entries, such as the following, have nothing to do with the client, correct? Warning,4324,07/08/02,10:24:17,,Template: D:\websites\intranet\sign-in\index.cfm, Ran: 10 seconds. Correct. This means CF took 10 seconds to run that template (yuk). By placing URL vars in a search safe URL (like http://mypage.cfm/test/1st), it is possible to view the exact request in the server.log. I did this and compared with the cf debug output for several cfm pages, and the server.log reported processing times 3-4 times longer than what the cf debug output reported. I also looked at the NT performance monitor settings available from the CF server start-menu options and saw no pages take the amount of time reported by the server.log. Because of this evidence, I believe that page download time is reflected in the server.log numbers, at least to some degree. Related question. Do you get the _following_ errors when a user bails: Error,3496,07/08/02,11:04:59,,Error number 232 occurred attempting to close connection to web server. Error,3496,07/08/02,11:04:59,,Windows NT error number 232 occurred. AFAIK, these errors occur when the user clicks the stop button or otherwise quits waiting for a response. The webserver figures this out, and in turn quits waiting for CF to finish processing the page. When CF gets done processing and tries to send it back to the webserver, the webserver doesn't want it anymore, and this error is logged. There are two causes suggested. The first is that the user has bailed on the request. The second is that the cf server has had an error connecting to the database and returned a broken pipe error (or something similar) which will presumably cause another connection to be created. I think that case #2 is when you can get a cluster of these errors instead of the typical 2 in a row that you listed. Supposedly, these are benign, but no opinion that I have ever read came off as completely authoritative. There is a knowledge base article on macromedia that you can find if you search for 232 on the site. Matt __ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: File Size limit with CFFile?
We had a terrible time with CFFile and uploads. We got not only the memory spike, but an unbelievable spiking of CPU's to 100% for the full duration of the transfer, in our development and production environments, and in test code to isolate the problem. The side effect was that it slowed transfer rates down by a large amount because the CPU's were too busy. The solution was to use a single .asp page with a COM that handles this well with IIS. After the transfer the .asp page does a redirect to a cfm page. Transfer rates are way up, CPU and memory way down. A waste of time and a few bucks (~$150 for the COM), but it solved the problem. I sure hope this is fixed in MX, but I suppose it is a limit to ISAPI and not a poor implementation on the MM side. Matt -Original Message- From: Tony Gruen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 5:26 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: File Size limit with CFFile? Thanh, The restriction is primary available system memory on the server (RAM). CFFILE moves the uploaded file into available system RAM BEFORE writing it to the hard drive. If you're running Windows you will probably see an error 1450 come up if the file is too large. Tony Gruen -Original Message- From: Thanh Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 3:18 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: File Size limit with CFFile? Is there a limit on the file size using CFFILE? I have a simple program that helps clients upload files to our server, but they can't upload files that's over 30 MB. Is this a browser issue or server issue? Thanks, Thanh Nguyen __ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: CF 5 and CFMX
The COM problem is why we put off our plans to migrate to MX. Otherwise, we would have purchased the upgrades and begun the process of testing for our next milestone. Matt -- cto Turbo Squid -Original Message- From: Frank Mamone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 2:56 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: CF 5 and CFMX Ditto! Glad to hear they're working on it. - Original Message - From: David Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 3:12 PM Subject: RE: CF 5 and CFMX I have installed some application stress testing utilities. Depending on how the app does with a high amount of simulated traffic I may rewrite the COM's in CF. I just hate to have to do that. Thanks, Dave -Original Message- From: Lewis Sellers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 2:57 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: CF 5 and CFMX On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:03:44 -0500, in cf-talk you wrote: Dave, CFMX uses a Java COM wrapper that was developed by a 3rd party and rolled into CFMX. The name of the company that built it escapes me at the moment. However, this added layer is probably not good news for COM centric CFML code. A Macromedia rep told me they are hoping to release fixes for the problems with COM in the first MX service release. I get the feeling a programmer somewhere isn't getting much sleep of late. For your information the jintegra com--java interface a) is a slug and b) doesn't work very well, especially with COM properties. In fact isn't a single COM I have that works at all under CFMX if it involves setting a property. I rolled back to CF5 for the time being. --min __ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: CF 5 and CFMX
The COM problem is why we put off our plans to migrate to MX. Otherwise, we would have purchased the upgrades and begun the process of testing for our next milestone. We'll pick up the issue when MX is patched... Matt -- cto Turbo Squid -Original Message- From: Mark A. Kruger - CFG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 9:43 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: CF 5 and CFMX hehe... yeah - I was amazed I got any COM to work on CFMX. It's really very quirky, especially when setting properties. I'm guessing the type matching isn't quite right. And it isn't going to be faster under any circumstances as far as I can see - since there is a middle layer now setting in between the constructor code and the actual instance. If you have a lot of COM centric code, I'd consider either sticking with CF 5 or minimizing it as much as possible. -mk -Original Message- From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 9:38 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: CF 5 and CFMX It is supposedly faster and enhanced. COM support? There's no way that the COM support of CF MX is faster than CF 5, which, after all, was a native Win32 application. COM support in CF MX uses a third-party Java-to-COM bridge from JIntegra. I'm amazed it works at all, but it's not going to be faster by a long shot. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 __ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: CFSILENT why would it be used?
It turns out that the CF server replaces the CF code with HTML and returns the output page. It has no default logic to suppress whitespace -- who knows, maybe you are trying to output well formatted html code. It literally just replaces out the cfml that it parses with whatever the cfml was supposed to output. This becomes a real problem if you have a query and logic over 10 lines that loop 20 times. Now all of a sudden you have added 200 lines of whitespace with tabs, spaces, and carriage returns, especially if you have separated your business logic from presentation. So for us, all of our business logic is processed within CF silent. In retrospect, we would always process presentation logic within the tag that only outputs text when within a CFOUTPUT tag pair. In the past, people have complained about CF that it outputs tons of whitespace. I have seen several KB in a single page. These are the solutions offered from Allaire. Matt -- Matt Wisdom cto Turbo Squid -Original Message- From: Matt Robertson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 7:20 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: CFSILENT why would it be used? It just kills whitespace. It doesn't suppress the default CF debugging messages, but anything you put in yourself, like variable dumps, will be suppressed. --- Matt Robertson[EMAIL PROTECTED] MSB Designs, Inc., www.mysecretbase.com --- -- Original Message -- from: Mike Brunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] date: Fri, 31 May 2002 17:09:44 -0700 I have a quick question, we are troubleshooting a CF App with large scale use of the CFSILENT tag. What would anyone see as the main need for using this tag and would it suppress the display of any of the debug output within the opening and closing of the tag? Kind Regards - Mike Brunt, CTO Webapper http://www.webapper.com Downey CA Office 562.243.6255 AIM - webappermb Webapper - Making the NET work __ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Ünicode -- no support?
Apparently, CF doesn't support unicode. How are people dealing with Ü (umlauts) and other characters like å? I've gotten complaints from some Swedes since their address is garbeled... TIA, Matt BTW, if you reply, please cc me, too. I've had some wacky behavior with the listserv recently. -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
RE: CF Hack for MS's WAS
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--=_NextPart_000_0002_01BFFC6E.F87236A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Here's the URL2Form tag that I mentioned. I placed a call to it in the
Application.cfm for load testing purposes with WAS. So far so good...
Matt
--=_NextPart_000_0002_01BFFC6E.F87236A0
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
name="URL2Form.cfm"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="URL2Form.cfm"
cfsetting enablecfoutputonly=3D"yes"
!--- This tag will turn all 'URL' scoped variables into 'Form' scoped =
variables. =20
---
cfif isdefined("cgi.query_string") and isdefined("cgi.path_info")
cfif len(cgi.query_string)
cfloop list=3D"#cgi.query_string#" delimiters=3D"" =
index=3D"valuepair"
cfset URLName =3D "#ListGetAt(valuepair, 1, "=3D")#"=20
CFIF refindnocase("[[:alpha:]]",left(trim(urlname),1)) and
NOT =
ISDEFINED( 'caller.FORM.' urlname )
cfset "caller.form.#urlname#" =3D
"#evaluate("url.""#urlname#")#"
/CFIF
/cfloop
/cfif
/cfif
cfsetting enablecfoutputonly=3D"No"
--=_NextPart_000_0002_01BFFC6E.F87236A0--
--
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
RE: Load Testing
We found a few that cost major cash -- I think the cheap one Dave mentioned a while back was $30k. We use Microsoft's tool (W.A.S.), which is okay, but suited to ASP. I hacked a tag together "URL2Form" tag which copies all URL vars to the FORM scope since WAS doesn't seem to like posting FORM vars. Now it works fine -- I'll post the tag if anyone wants it... WAS also does multiple client computers coordinated by a master for testing, no limitation on the numbers of threads or users, supports database (but it must be access '97) and will read in any kind of delimeted file as test data for posting, and works with SSL. It doesn't, however, give times on loading dynamic images -- it just gets the html for a page, and any images that you explicitly specify. They also have responded to emails... The others were somewhat better in some ways, but not THAT much better. We didn't try Segue... Matt Below is the original message from Dave Watts: - Anyone have any urls for stress testing software, free and paid alike? Segue SilkPerformer: http://www.segue.com/ This is the tool that we use at Fig Leaf. It's very expensive, but powerful, easy to use, with good reporting capability and a good scripting language based on Pascal. RSW E-Load: http://www.rswsoftware.com/ We've evaluated this one, and it's pretty nice. It's significantly cheaper than SilkPerformer, but I didn't like its scripting and reporting as much. Mercury LoadRunner: http://www.merc-int.com/ I don't remember too much about the Mercury toolset, although I think they've changed it significantly since I last looked. Benchmark Factory: http://www.benchmarkfactory.com/ I haven't used this at all, so can't say much about it. It's the only one in the bunch that you can use for testing SMB file services, I think. Microsoft Web Application Stress Tool (free!): http://homer.rte.microsoft.com/ This one requires that you do more work than the others do, but it's free, and did I mention that it's free? Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 -- Archives: http://www.eGroups.com/list/cf-talk To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. -Original Message- From: Duane Boudreau [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 4:11 PM To: CFTalk Subject: Load Testing Hi All, Does anyone know of a good load testing application that is: a) reasonable cost b) easy to learn c) script based Thanks, Duane Boudreau, eMPower Project Manager Director, Web Technologies Ektron, Inc. http://www.ektron.com 5 Northern Blvd, Suite 6 Amherst, NH 03031 Tel: 603-594-0249 x114 Fax: 603-594-0258 -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf _talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=listsbody=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
