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

[Mark Proctor]

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 at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20070928/ee227ed7/attachment.html