Hi Mark,

 

Thanks for the reply. That clears up point 1. I will try and develop a patch (honest :)). However, I assume the problems in my points 2 and 3 about the archived package asset itself not showing up in the list of archived assets in the admin section is a bug; and also the fact that you cannot then recreate a package with the same name as an archived package via the drl import mechanism are both bugs?

 

Regards,

Shahad
 

 

On 9/28/07, Mark Proctor <mproctor@codehaus.org> wrote:

each asset is currently treated indivually so a package is itself an asset like a rule is an asset. Whats needed here is an option, when archiving packages, that asks if you would like to archive its configured rules.

patch welcome :)

Mark
Shahad Ahmed wrote:

I've come across a few serious usability problems whilst using the import and archiving packages functionality in the BRMS. However, before raising a JIRA, I thought I'd ask the community if these are expected behaviours, or legitimate bugs.

1. Archiving a package only removes the package definition – all rules etc in the package are not archived. Is this the expected behaviour? As a naive user I would have expected the package and all its rules etc to be archived.

2. The archived package definition does not show up in the list of archived assets under the Admin/Manage Archived Assets option. Is the list of archived packages available elsewhere, and if so can you restore an archived package again?

3. I archived a package in the BRMS – which removed the package from the listed packages in the BRMS. I then tried to create a new package with the same name as the archived (i.e. removed) package using the "Import package from drl" option. The new drl package had rules with different names from the original rules in the archived package. However, the new package was not created from the drl (the new package name does not show up in the list of packages), although the new rules in the drl where imported. If you try to recreate this, be aware that it wont be obvious the new rules have imported as their containing package is not created – and as the imported rules from a drl have no category they do not show up in the list of rules, unless you search for them by name.

Am I right in thinking that the problem with archiving a package, and then failing to recreate the package with the same name using the import mechanism is a bug, or is there something subtle I'm missing with this behaviour?

Regards
Shahad

_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
  

 

_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users