RE: [coldbox:12539] Re: Logbox question

did I write numbers in the docs?

Yep. There is a whole table that shows the mapping of the “name” version to the integer. This note also exists, highlighted in the docs:

"Note: All the levelMin and levelMax attributes can either be the numeric representation of the severity or the fully qualified name you can see in the severity table."

we could switch the integer values to whatever we liked in all reality.

I don’t think that’s the case. The wording of the levelMin and levelMax settings are intrinsically tied to the integer values that define the log severities.

Consider DEBUG = 4 and INFO = 3. It is a given that DEBUG is “higher” than INFO. If your max level is DEBUG, you will log INFO messages as well.

However, if we redefine DEBUG = 10000 and INFO = 20000, then DEBUG will be “lower” than INFO. That now means that a max level of DEBUG will exclude INFO messages.
Furthermore, to regain your original functionality, your MAX level of DEBUG would need to be reversed to a MIN level of DEBUG since we flipped the scale end-to-end.

We could probably tell people to blindly replace “min” with “max” and vice versa (as well as replacing any integer values with the equivilant word) but it would be a mandatory compatibility fix for upgrading. That, and I’d have to think through a few more scenarios before I’d be willing to bet any money on it. :slight_smile:

Does that make sense?



Luis, this thread sort of died out a couple weeks ago. What are you thoughts? To review:

  1. Keep current numeric severity levels which are backwards and have often confused people on the list
  2. Switch to be aligned with Log4J which will break backwards compatibility and require people to reverse their max/min settings and/or modify any numeric values.


Yes, maybe we can review it after the 3.5 beta. As of now, I am trying to stabilize it and finalize a few pending tickets before release.

Luis F. Majano
Ortus Solutions, Corp

ColdBox Platform:
Linked In:
IECFUG Manager: