[rules-users] Problems archiving and restoring packages in the BRMS

[Shahad Ahmed]

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20070928/ae9f3d83/attachment.html