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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL > PROTECTED]://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > >
_______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
